lines

All TfL lines that will be shut this weekend during month of London Underground chaos

Transport for London (TfL) has announced a number of closures and service changes across the network in November, including the London Underground, London Overground and Elizabeth line

There’s set to be a month of travel chaos as Transport for London (TfL) announces a series of closures across its network for maintenance work. The disruptions will mostly take place over the weekends, with some starting from today (1 November), while others will affect late-night weekday commuters.

The Elizabeth line will face 11 disruptions throughout November, while services on the Mildmay line in East and North London will be altered. The DLR timetable will also be changed, with trains halted at various locations almost every weekend, reports My London.

Passengers are being urged to plan their journeys in advance and use the TfL journey planner to avoid confusion. Here’s the full list of planned track closures, including those set to cause disruption this weekend.

READ MORE: New Ryanair route to destination that’s 21C in NovemberREAD MORE: ‘I went skiing for the first time – one piece of advice proved to be useless’

London Underground closures

Bakerloo line

  • Sunday, 9 November: No service from Stonebridge Park to Harrow & Wealdstone until 7.45am.
  • Saturday, 29 November: Sunday, November 30: No service from Queen’s Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

Metropolitan line

  • Saturday, 15 November:Sunday, November 16: No service from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Uxbridge.

Northern line

  • Saturday, 8 November – Sunday, 9 November: Trains will not stop at Angel station.
  • Friday, 28 November – Saturday, 29 November: No service from Hampstead to Edgware during Friday Night Tube.
  • Saturday, 29 November – Sunday, 30 November: No service from Golders Green to Edgware, including during Saturday Night Tube.

Piccadilly line

  • Saturday, 1 November – Sunday, 2 November: No service from Acton Town to Heathrow, including during Saturday Night Tube.
  • Saturday, 1 November – Sunday, 2 November: No service from Rayners Lane to Uxbridge.
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: No service from Acton Town to Uxbridge.

London Overground closures

Liberty line

  • Sunday, 23 November: No service from Romford to Upminster

Lioness line

  • Sunday, 9 November: No service from Willesden Junction to Watford Junction until 7.45am.
  • Saturday, 29 November – Sunday, 30 November: No service from Euston to Watford Junction.

Mildmay line

  • Sunday, 2 November: No service from Willesden Junction to Richmond all day.
  • Sunday, 2 November: No service from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction until 9.30pm.
  • Sunday, 9 November: No service Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction.
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: No service from Gospel Oak to Richmond and Shepherd’s Bush.
  • Sunday, 16 November: No service from Camden Road to Stratford after 10.15pm.
  • Saturday, 22 November – Sunday, 23 November: No service from Gospel Oak to Richmond and Shepherd’s Bush.
  • Monday, 24 November – Thursday, 27 November: No service from Stratford to Camden Road westbound after 11.45pm.
  • Wednesday, 26 November – Thursday, 27 November: No service from Willesden Junction to Stratford eastbound after 11pm.

Weaver line

  • Sunday, 9 November: No service from Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, Cheshunt and Chingford until 10.15am.
  • Monday, 10 November – Thursday, 13 November: No service from Hackney Downs to Enfield Town and Cheshunt after 10.45pm.

Windrush line

  • Monday, 3 November – Thursday, 6 November: No service from Highbury & Islington to New Cross, New Cross Gate and Clapham Junction after 9.15pm.
  • Sunday, 16 November: No service from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction.
  • Sunday, 16 November: No service from Highbury & Islington to Dalston Junction after 10.15pm.
  • Monday, 24 November – Thursday, 27 November: No service from New Cross Gate to Crystal Palace and West Croydon after 11.30pm.
  • Sunday, 30 November: No service from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction.

Elizabeth line closures

  • Monday, 3 November – Wednesday, 5 November: Reduced service between Paddington and Maidenhead and at Heathrow Terminal 4 after 10pm.
  • Monday, 3 November – Wednesday, 5 November: Trains will not stop at Acton Main Line, Hanwell and West Ealing after 10.30pm.
  • Sunday, 9 November: Reduced service between Paddington and Maidenhead and at Heathrow Terminal 4.
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: No service from Paddington to Abbey Wood and Stratford.
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: No service from Hayes & Harlington to Heathrow.
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: Reduced service between Paddington and Maidenhead.
  • Sunday, 23 November: No service from Liverpool Street (National Rail platforms) and Whitechapel to Shenfield
  • Sunday, 23 November: No service from Paddington to Ealing Broadway until 7.45am.
  • Sunday, 30 November: No service from Paddington to Ealing Broadway until 7.45am.
  • Sunday, 30 November: Trains will not stop at Woolwich until 10am.
  • Sunday, 30 November: Reduced service between Paddington and Maidenhead and at Heathrow Terminal 4.

DLR closures

  • Saturday, 1 November – Sunday, 2 November: No service from Tower Gateway to Shadwell
  • Saturday, 1 November – Sunday, 2 November: No service from Canning Town to Beckton
  • Saturday, 15 November – Sunday, 16 November: No service from Canning Town to Stratford International.
  • Saturday, 22 November: No service from Stratford International to Woolwich Arsenal.
  • Saturday, 22 November: No service from Poplar to Beckton.
  • Saturday, 22 November – Sunday, 23 November: No service from Tower Gateway to Shadwell.
  • Saturday, 29 November – Sunday, 30 November: No service from Bank/Tower Gateway to Canning Town/Lewisham
  • Saturday, 29 November – Sunday, 30 November: No service from Canary Wharf to Stratford.

Tram closures

  • Saturday, 1 November – Sunday, 2 November No service from Wimbledon to Therapia Lane

Source link

Showdown at Rocky Flats : When Federal Agents Take On a Government Nuclear-Bomb Plant, Lines of Law and Politics Blur, and Moral Responsibility Is Tested

Barry Seigel, a Times national correspondent, is the author of “Death in White Bear Lake” and “Shades of Gray,” both published by Bantam Books. His last story for this magazine was about the University of Wisconsin’s effort to outlaw hate speech

WHEN FBI AGENT JON LIPSKY PROPOSED IN JUNE, 1988, THAT they “do Rocky Flats,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Ken Fimberg gave him the type of look you’d direct at someone who’d just said something intriguing but utterly wacky. Lipsky was neither surprised nor offended, for he more or less shared this response. They were sitting in Fimberg’s office in the federal courthouse building in downtown Denver. With them was William Smith, an Environmental Protection Agency investigator. As Lipsky’s suggestion hung in the air, the three men couldn’t suppress their grins. Yeah, sure, Fimberg thought, we’re going to prosecute Rocky Flats for environmental crimes. For the moment, they all pretended it was a crazy joke.

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, after all, was a top-secret, high-security, 100-building fortress spread over some 400 acres on a mesa 16 miles northwest of Denver. You couldn’t just stroll in there. They had guards who were allowed to shoot. They also had missiles–real anti-aircraft rockets. The potential political controversies looked even nastier than the firepower. Although operated under contract by Rockwell International since 1975, Rocky Flats in fact belonged to the United States Department of Energy. There’d never been a criminal environmental case brought against a federal facility. If the U.S. attorney’s office in Colorado were to go after Rocky Flats, one federal agency in effect would be raiding another. The tangled mass of murky environmental law was hard enough to navigate without that complication. “Doing Rocky Flats” would be a huge, unimaginable undertaking.

The idea was tantalizing to Fimberg, though. Then 34, he was not unfamiliar with the weapons plant. A dozen years before, studying at the University of Colorado in Boulder, just up the road from Rocky Flats, he’d sometimes driven by the place at night. In the dark, surrounded by a perimeter of lights, sitting up on that plateau giving off a yellow-tinted glow, Rocky Flats made quite an impact. Its troubled, 35-year-long history made an even bigger one. From government studies and press reports, Fimberg knew of the two explosive fires, one in 1957 that had spewed unfiltered plutonium into the air and another in 1969. He knew of the 5,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated oil that had leached into the soil between 1964 and 1967. He knew of the toxic materials such as beryllium and tritium that had leaked for years into the ground water. He knew of the lawsuits by neighbors that had forced the government in 1984 to buy a 6,550-acre buffer zone around Rocky Flats. He knew that about 1.8 million people lived within 50 miles of the plant.

He now also knew what Lipsky and Smith had turned up during a discreet, yearlong preliminary investigation. Their reports were spread out on the desk between them. They looked interesting.

The prosecutor and two agents eyed each other. Working together the year before on another case, they’d convicted Protex Industries Inc. for exposing three employees to toxic substances–the first such “knowing endangerment” conviction in the nation. The Protex verdict was six months behind them, though. They’d had plenty of time to catch their breath and pat themselves on the back.

Their jokes about the Rocky Flats idea trailed off. Well, why not do Rocky Flats?

Looking back now at this moment in Ken Fimberg’s office, it is tempting to ask whether there ever would have been a Rocky Flats prosecution if the three men sitting there that day had fully grasped what they were getting into. Fimberg, after all, would eventually find himself taking on not just a giant DOE nuclear weapons plant but also 40 years of deeply institutionalized public policy. For pushing his case too hard, he’d eventually face restraints and a change of heart from his politicized Department of Justice supervisors. For pushing too softly, he’d end up being investigated and denounced by an outraged congressional subcommittee. For being beset by ambivalence, he’d get flattened by a runaway grand jury that disagreed with him not so much over the facts as over what to make of them.

Only much later would Fimberg realize that he’d created these problems by inadvertently tackling several complex and ambiguous questions. When broad elements of the federal government disregard the law, who is to blame? Are people to be called criminals if they act in accordance with a pervasive institutional culture? Should Rocky Flats managers be indicted for carrying out the will of their supervisors and employers? For that matter, should grand jurors obey court officers, and prosecutors bow to their bosses, even when they think doing so is wrong? In the end, these were the issues at the heart of the Rocky Flats investigation. Ken Fimberg’s inquiry eventually would become a disturbing exploration into the personal moral responsibility not just of bomb-plant managers but also of their judges–the 23 grand jurors and Fimberg himself.

Perhaps Fimberg would have pursued Rocky Flats even if he’d known he’d have to confront all this. After all, he left a big commercial law firm for the U.S. attorney’s white-collar-crimes unit because he’d tired of “moving big amounts of money from one pocket to another” and thought there were “more important things to do.” He’d clerked for the Environmental Defense Fund and served on the board of the Colorado Wildlife Federation because of a passion for the wilderness. He’d studied moral philosophy and political science at Boulder, and the law at Harvard, because he’d always been interested in “how the legal system forms social values.”

In the end, though, it was not just ethics or idealism or the environment tugging at Fimberg on this June morning. Unvarnished ambition lured as well. Here was a new goal, a larger challenge, a chance once more for a big win.

“Do you know,” Fimberg asked his colleagues, “just how hard Rocky Flats is going to be?”

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ROCKY FLATS AROUSED PRIDE AND PATRIOTISM, not prosecutors. Against the context of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, the discovery of plutonium and the spread of fallout shelters, the Denver Post in a March 23, 1951, headline felt inspired to announce “There’s Good News Today–U.S. to Build $45 Million A-Plant Near Denver.” The plant’s chief task, to manufacture plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, was carried out under a cloak of secrecy and an autonomy that few disputed. The country wanted to make bombs, not worry about the environment.

Even in later years, after environmental concerns mounted and Congress adopted statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the politicians either exempted DOE bomb plants from the new laws or fudged the issue with vague language. Then, when efforts to regulate weapons plants did begin in the early 1980s, DOE managers fiercely resisted, insisting environmental laws like RCRA didn’t apply to the particular type of waste they generated. Rocky Flats managers often blindfolded EPA investigators before leading them through the plant. The regulatory agencies may not have liked that, but they played along, negotiating “compliance agreements” and “memos of understanding” whose deadlines were rarely met.

It was against this backdrop that EPA investigator Bill Smith brought a curious document to FBI Agent Jon Lipsky in May, 1987. The two of them sat hunched together in Lipsky’s cubicle in the FBI’s Denver office, staring at Smith’s prize. It was an internal DOE memo directed to Mary L. Walker, then the department’s assistant secretary for environment, safety and health. The memo had been written 10 months before, by Walker’s assistant, John Barker, to brief her about yet another compliance agreement DOE was supposed to sign with the EPA and the Colorado Department of Health. This one would finally clarify that RCRA did indeed apply to some of Rocky Flats’ hazardous waste. As usual, DOE was resisting.

“The language seeks to ‘finesse’ the issue of EPA’s authority. . . .” Barker informed Walker. “The only question is one of whether there is a sufficient degree of vagueness and ambiguity; the proposed language provides this.” DOE should not fight this deal, Barker advised. “The compliance posture of Rocky Flats makes it a poor candidate for testing fine points of law. . . . Much of the good press we have gotten from the Agreement in Principle has taken attention away from just how really bad the site is. . . . We have basically no RCRA groundwater monitoring wells. Our permit applications are grossly deficient. Some of the waste facilities there are patently ‘illegal.’ We have serious contamination.” Failure to sign the deal would “suggest that direct, harsh enforcement action . . . will be more expeditious and productive.”

Lipsky understandably found this memo interesting. Then in his early 30s, he was a onetime Las Vegas street cop who had worked his way into the FBI through bulldog persistence. Lipsky had a casual manner, an unimposing build and a taste for the type of lackluster sport coats and checked socks favored by cautious back-room clerks. Lipsky also had a taste for the public corruption beat, particularly environmental crimes. He’d attended training sessions, he’d lectured other FBI agents, he’d been lead investigator in 13 environmental cases. In the Mary Walker memo he smelled his 14th.

Ken Fimberg was intrigued but hesitant when Lipsky and Smith first came to him. Born and raised in Oklahoma City, Fimberg’s commitment to the environment was undeniable, his reputation for integrity squeaky clean. He hiked, he climbed mountains, he rafted rivers, he led a boys’ camping and sports program at his local church, he volunteered as a Big Brother. Full-faced, almost burly, with a mustache and an earnest manner, he liked to thrash out issues with others. He also, though, liked to temper his instincts with a certain rational calculation. He tended to frame and qualify his remarks with the logic of a lawyer.

This bent toward caution prevailed at first. Fimberg knew the movement of prosecuting environmental crimes was still in its infancy. Those few who ventured into the new field usually ended up wrestling with obtuse regulations and mountains of complicated documents. White-collar crime was not sexy. You needed to master a computer database rather than a witness in an interrogation room. You also needed to hold your own with meddlesome Department of Justice supervisors in Washington who didn’t always share their line prosecutors’ enthusiasm for environmental-crime enforcement.

“It’s too early to tell,” Fimberg told the agents that first summer. “Keep poking around. Be discreet. I won’t stop you.”

When they returned to Fimberg a year later, in June, 1988, Lipsky and Smith brought not just suspicious memos, but particulars. The numbers didn’t add up. The numbers didn’t match the permits. The numbers didn’t match the available storage space. Where was all that waste going? The incinerator in Rocky Flats Building 771 seemed to provide the answer. The DOE and Rockwell had always insisted this incinerator was exempt from RCRA regulation because it was a “plutonium recovery” facility, one of those exclusions Congress had given bomb plants. But Lipsky believed the 771 incinerator was in fact burning hazardous wastes, not recovering plutonium. The waste had to be going somewhere. Lipsky was sure it was going up in smoke.

Fimberg considered the reports before him. “I think we have enough to go forward,” he finally told the agents.

Together, the three made an initial presentation that August to acting U.S. Atty. Michael Norton. For a while, Norton held off making a decision. Then an event at Rocky Flats changed the equation.

On Sept. 29, a DOE inspector named Joseph Krupar, while inspecting Building 771, walked unprotected into a radioactive zone that had no warning signs. Understandably disturbed, Krupar railed at assorted DOE and Rockwell supervisors. Building 771 is out of control, he later told FBI agents; in fact, he charged, Rockwell places production over safety all over Rocky Flats. On Oct. 7, DOE responded by ordering the temporary shutdown of Building 771.

Two weeks later, Fimberg, Lipsky and Smith met in the U.S. attorney’s conference room with Norton and other top managers from the FBI and the prosecutor’s office. Fimberg did the talking. “Here’s what we see so far,” he said. “I think it’s enough to go forward on. We’ve done as much as we can in this low-key way. Now we’ve got to be overt.”

A row of skeptical faces stared back at him.

“Are you sure you want to go after this?” Norton asked.

Mike Norton did not bring to this meeting much experience in the field of criminal law. In fact, he had never tried a criminal case in his life. A former regional head of the General Services Administration and twice an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress, Norton had been named U.S. attorney by President Ronald Reagan the previous spring and had not yet been confirmed. Partly because of Norton’s brusque manner and partly because nothing in his career suggested much preparation for the role of prosecutor, all sorts of critics had objected to his appointment, calling it a “political cookie” for a Republican loyalist. Whether or not that was fair, Norton undeniably was obliged to rely on the experienced trial lawyers in his department. By then he had come to rely on Fimberg particularly.

Yes, Fimberg said. Let’s do Rocky Flats.

Thus did Operation Desert Glow begin. All decisions would be made by Fimberg in agreement with him, Norton said. Potential targets would include Rockwell International, Rockwell’s employees and DOE employees; sovereign immunity protected the Department of Energy itself. They would need a special grand jury. They would need a search warrant.

Everyone looked at each other. They were going to raid Rocky Flats. The Department of Justice was going to raid the Department of Energy.

TO FIMBERG, FROM THE SKY, THE ROCKY FLATS WEAPONS PLANT–bounded by state highways, a series of holding ponds and a high chain-link fence–resembled nothing so much as an aging industrial foundry. It was early morning on Dec. 9, six weeks after Norton flashed the green light. Fimberg was sitting next to Lipsky in the FBI’s eight-seat prop plane, surrounded by a mess of infrared surveillance equipment, looking down at his target.

This is sort of strange, he thought. They were on a spy mission, not unlike Cold War U-2 pilots flying high over the Soviet Union. Except they were in Colorado, flying over a U.S. government facility.

Studying a monitor connected to the infrared cameras, Fimberg could see white plumes rising from a smokestack and white streams leading toward a body of water. On an infrared image, white signifies a hot spot–thermal activity. An EPA agent on board nudged Fimberg and Lipsky, pointing to the monitor. “Take a look at that,” he said.

Late that night, and again on two more evenings in mid-December, the FBI plane overflew Rocky Flats. Then, in early January, EPA experts in Las Vegas delivered their analyses.

The smokestack plume came from the Building 771 incinerator, one infrared expert said. Even though it was supposedly shut down, it was “thermally active” late on the nights of Dec. 9, 10 and 15. So was a holding pond that on paper had been closed two years before because of leaks. A hot stream of wastes was also flowing from the sewage-treatment plant to Woman Creek, an illegal direct discharge. Samples from one such direct discharge strongly suggested that “medical waste” was coming from some sort of “research laboratory” dabbling in “experimental” chemicals.

Fimberg was excited. Amid the tangle of mind-numbing RCRA regulations, here, he thought, might be some pretty sexy smoking guns: a clandestine midnight incinerator burn, direct toxic discharges into public water supplies, an exotic lab, concealment. White-collar environmental crimes didn’t usually provide anything nearly as dramatic as the AK-47s and sacks of cocaine shown off by criminal prosecutors before crowded press conferences. But this one might.

Fimberg began regularly flying to Washington to brief various Justice Department supervisors. Up the department’s ladder he climbed, repeating his dog-and-pony show. Each time he’d first draw skepticism, if not disbelief. Oh, come on, you’re not serious, we’re not going to do Rocky Flats, they’d say. Each time Fimberg would bring them around.

On Jan. 10, Don Carr, the acting head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, finally gave conceptual approval for a raid of Rocky Flats. In March, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh signed off. In early June, Thornburgh, Norton, FBI Director William S. Sessions, EPA administrator William K. Reilly and Adm. James D. Watkins, secretary of the Department of Energy, signed a memo of understanding about what was to happen. At 9 a.m. on June 6, the raid began.

Jon Lipsky and Bill Smith led a small team through the main entrance on State Highway 93. Ostensibly, they were on their way to a prearranged meeting with Rocky Flats officials to talk about recent threats from the environmental group Earth First! But once in the meeting room, they revealed the true reason for their visit and slapped copies of the search warrant into the startled hands of DOE and Rockwell officials.

“You can’t be serious,” stuttered Dominic Sanchini, Rockwell’s manager at Rocky Flats.

“We are serious,” replied FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Coyle.

Then 62, Sanchini was a balding, jowly Rockwell veteran with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, a law degree and a background in the development of rocket engines. As the search unfolded, Sanchini told the agents he’d seen notices of noncompliance from various regulatory agencies, but they were always minor and immediately corrected. Problems got solved if DOE wanted to pay for them.

On the fourth day of the search, according to FBI reports, Agent Edward Sutcliff, looking into a cabinet along the west wall of the manager’s office, came upon a large box of steno pads. Sanchini said those were diaries he had kept while working for NASA. He was planning to write a book.

Sutcliff began searching an adjoining middle cabinet. That cabinet has stuff from my old job, Sanchini said. Just as the Rocky Flats manager mouthed those words, Sutcliff discovered in the cabinet, under a foot-high stack of documents, another pile of steno pads. The FBI agent began leafing through the pages. They appeared to be Sanchini’s diary of events at Rocky Flats.

“Environment becoming a big deal. The EPA can destroy us,” read one entry from July 1, 1986. “Don’t tell press. . . . Tie mind, mouth and asshole together,” read another, referring to a discovery of ground-water contamination. “DOE doesn’t follow the law,” read an entry from May 6, 1987.

All told, the search took 18 days, involved 75 FBI and EPA agents and yielded 184 boxes of documents. When it was over, prosecutors and agents hauled their booty to the special office space they’d secured in downtown Denver.

Now, Fimberg thought, we’ll see if we have a story to tell.

WHEN WES MCKINLEY FOUND A POSTCARD IN HIS MAILBOX ONE afternoon in July, 1989, summoning him to federal grand jury duty in Denver, he didn’t know what to make of it. In truth, he didn’t know what a grand jury was. The term conjured in his mind the vague image of a ponderous group cloaked in judicial robes.

McKinley’s confusion was understandable. Then 45, married and the father of four, he lived where he’d always lived, on a ragged cattle ranch 300 miles from Denver in the barren southeast corner of Colorado. His father had worked this same land before him, and his grandfather had homesteaded it in 1909. There was no way to travel between McKinley’s home and Denver other than charter a plane or make the five-hour drive on two-lane state roads, so he’d always managed to stay fairly isolated from the outside world.

That is not to say McKinley was a rube. Far from it. He had a degree in math and physics from a four-year state college in Oklahoma, and he mixed fairly well with urban types when they showed up for the twice-a-year “city slicker” cattle drives he ran, at $1,000 per guest. He had a jaunty humor and the look of a real cowboy, what with the mustache, the week-old beard just turning to gray, the jeans, the boots, the spurs, the red bandanna, the dirty white cowboy hat and the ragged strands of dark brown hair hanging over his ears and neck. It is true that when he took his hat off, revealing a crown as bald as an egg, the passing effect was somewhat droll. But McKinley was, indeed, a cowboy. The manure on his spurs was the real thing, not the sort slung about in corridors of power in downtown Denver or Washington.

The grand jury postcard in hand, McKinley drove 18 miles north up the unpaved road that leads from his home to the tiny settlement of Walsh, where he continued on to the town of Springfield. There he showed the postcard to an old lawyer friend of his, who explained about grand juries and how Wes had a duty as a citizen if called to serve on one. That sounded fine to McKinley. In the one-room schoolhouse he had attended as a kid, they used to teach citizenship. They used to say the Pledge of Allegiance and mean it. He’d willingly serve if picked.

When McKinley finally managed to locate the federal courthouse in downtown Denver on Aug. 1, 1989, and the meeting room where he was to report, he found himself amid a group of 50 people. Up front, someone was explaining that 23 of them would be picked to serve on a special federal grand jury. They’d be investigating Rocky Flats.

This puzzled McKinley. He recollected that there used to be a hippie camp out near Rocky Flats back in the ‘60s. McKinley raised his hand. “What’s Rocky Flats?” he asked.

Numbers pulled from a bowl determined which 23 of the 50 in the room would serve on the grand jury. One by one, the group took shape. Although chosen by random draw, they looked to be the result of nothing so much as a Hollywood casting director’s call.

There was Jerry Joyner, an overweight, outgoing former police detective in Shreveport, La., with a drawn-out Southern manner full of deference to women and backslapping good ol’ boy charm to men. There was Jerry Sandoval, an earnest and soft-spoken Denver bus driver who worried about losing overtime pay and being away from his family for so long. There was Paul Herzfeldt, a withdrawn, slump-shouldered equipment repairman who chain-smoked and had big rings around deep-set eyes. There was Shirley Kyle, a hairdresser and wheat farmer’s wife from the tiny east Colorado town of Flagler, who welcomed the grand jury summons as a chance to get out and see the world. There was Connie Modecker, an outspoken and devout believer in the Marian sect of the Catholic Church, who feared any disruption of her ordered life but was certain God had a reason for her being called to jury duty. There was Rebecca Walker, a plump woman from a remote northwestern reach of Colorado, whose journey, a one-hour drive through the Colorado National Monument followed by an eight-hour bus ride into Denver, was 10 miles longer even than Wes McKinley’s.

“You’ve met them before” is how grand juror Ken Peck likes to describe his colleagues. “You’ve seen them at Disneyland, you’ve seen them in their pickups.”

Ken Peck, as it happened, was himself a bit more complicated. The 23rd and last grand juror selected, Peck was a Denver lawyer with links to both Colorado Republican politics and Rocky Flats. In 1987, Peck had circulated petitions and written letters for Businesses Against Burning Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes, a group that fought plans to incinerate hazardous mixed wastes at Rocky Flats.

It is hard to see just how Peck ended up being allowed on the grand jury. U.S. Atty. Mike Norton admits he was “acquainted” with Peck from Republican political circles and was “aware of some involvement he’d had with Rocky Flats,” but he “wasn’t clear just what it was.” Pre-selection questioning of the potential grand jurors didn’t provide any further clarification.

“Anyone else have any activity with the EPA or Colorado Department of Health?” U.S. District Judge Sherman G. Finesilver asked at one point.

“Just to clarify your question, you are saying in an employment capacity?” Peck responded.

“Employment or contract capacity also,” the judge replied.

Hearing that, Peck held his tongue. “It was never asked. They almost got to it, but they didn’t,” he explained much later.

After the 23 Colorado citizens were selected, Judge Finesilver spent an hour reading Special Grand Jury 89-2 its instructions. Listening, the grand jurors hung on every word.

“It is every person’s duty to conform his acts to the laws enacted by Congress,” the judge began. “All are equal under the law, and no one is above the law. . . . If 12 or more members of the grand jury after deliberation believe that an indictment is warranted, then you will request the United States attorney to prepare a formal written indictment. . . . The federal grand jury . . . is independent of the United States attorney. . . . It is not an arm of the United States attorney’s office. Please keep in mind, you would perform a disservice if you did not indict where the evidence warranted an indictment. . . . The government attorneys cannot dominate or command your actions. . . . You must be strong and faithful in the discharge of your office.”

In the following months, the grand jurors would reread the transcript of Judge Finesilver’s remarks time and time again. They would invoke the judge’s words as gospel. In fact, Wes McKinley’s wife, Jan, grew so tired of his reading her passages from the instructions that he finally took a green marker and highlighted the sections he wanted her to remember.

“We did exactly as we were told to do,” McKinley says now, looking back at all that has happened. “We didn’t have any choice. It’s a real simple thing. People blow it up, make it complicated. But it’s simple. All we had to do is refer to the judge’s instructions. We did exactly that.”

THE RAID OF ROCKY FLATS AND THE IMPANELING OF SPECIAL Grand Jury 89-2 had an immediate impact on several fronts.

On Sept. 22, 1989, Energy Secretary Watkins terminated Rockwell’s contract as the Rocky Flats manager, one day after the company argued in court that it couldn’t fulfill its DOE contract without violating environmental laws. On Sept. 28, the EPA put Rocky Flats on its Superfund cleanup list as a dangerous site. On Nov. 13, Watkins shut down Rocky Flats’ plutonium operations in response to a warning about plutonium in the plant’s ventilation ducts. On Dec. 1, standing inside the Rocky Flats plant, speaking over a public-address system to all 6,000 employees, Watkins denounced his own department’s past handling of the weapons facility and unveiled sweeping plans for reform.

Ken Fimberg’s case appeared to be on a roll. But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, the prosecutor’s case just then had started to unravel.

The sequence began with the sort of startling revelation prosecutors most fear. One morning that October, Fimberg for the first time met in person the EPA expert who’d provided their infrared analysis. At a meeting to prepare for a grand jury appearance, they sat down to once more walk through what they had.

“The high temps you got mean they were running the incinerator, right?” Fimberg asked again. “It couldn’t be from the building’s heating system?”

The expert told Fimberg he couldn’t really say that.

Fimberg stared at him.

“What about the hot streams into the creeks?” the prosecutor asked. “Aren’t they coming straight from the sewage plant?”

Maybe not, the expert said. It looks more like runoff from the hillside.

“Wait a minute,” Fimberg said. “You’ve already told us that it was. Important decisions were made based on this.”

The EPA expert squirmed and shrugged but offered little more. The guy is backing off, a dismayed Fimberg realized. The guy is flip-flopping.

Without the infrared evidence, they didn’t have their smoking guns. It didn’t mean the midnight incinerator burn didn’t happen, but how to prove it? They had Building 771 oxygen sheets showing a big drop on Dec. 6, and only the incinerator used oxygen. That was enough for Lipsky. But Fimberg didn’t think that was enough to convince a jury.

In time, a good number of other allegations contained in the prosecutors’ search-warrant affidavit began to fall apart.

The exotic lab stuff went first. They’d been able to detect only trace amounts of those mysterious medical chemicals and couldn’t track them back to a particular source. That didn’t mean it didn’t happen, Fimberg knew. But to make a charge, he needed a source.

The 771 incinerator stuff didn’t so much collapse as wither. Yes, they’d been storing and burning hazardous waste in the 771 incinerator for years without a permit. But it turned out you could argue forever over whether it was a type of waste subject to RCRA and EPA jurisdiction. If it was radioactive waste, it was exempt. But what if it was a mixture of radioactive and other hazardous wastes? Not until 1987 had DOE conceded that mixed wastes were subject to RCRA.

Even then, the DOE and Rockwell general counsels stuck to their claim that the 771 incinerator was an exempt plutonium-recovery operation, although no plutonium had actually been recovered there for 10 years. Only when a DOE lawyer heard this fact directly from Rocky Flats laborers–potential witnesses–did Rockwell and DOE abandon this claim. Until then, Fimberg discovered to his considerable chagrin, his own Justice Department had filed legal briefs supporting the DOE’s position.

How could he prove criminal intent? For that matter, how could he keep the jurors awake long enough to explain the whole mess?

He’d started with a hypothesis, he’d tested the hypothesis, the hypothesis had changed. Whatever he dug out now would be much harder to get. Whatever he got now would come from slogging through millions of documents, tracking down hundreds of people, running dozens of witnesses before the grand jury.

To be precise, it would come from 3.5 million documents, 800 interviews and 110 grand jury witnesses. That was the well from which the Colorado investigators eventually pulled their case.

It was, when they finally shaped it, a much more subtle prosecution than they’d first imagined. No longer did it involve clandestine midnight incinerator burns. Now their case focused on a litany of spills, leaks and contamination by a weapons plant that for many years had been ceaselessly generating tons of hazardous wastes it couldn’t legally treat, store or dispose of.

According to FBI reports and court records, FBI agents and prosecutors in time discovered that Rockwell workers had been mixing hazardous and other wastes with concrete to form giant one-ton solid blocks called “pondcrete,” which they’d then stored under tarps on uncovered asphalt pads. Other types of waste they’d piped into a series of holding ponds, even after regulators had closed the ponds because of ground-water contamination. Liquid effluents from the sewage plant, meanwhile, had been “spray irrigated” over open fields through a network of sprinklers, mainly to avoid the cost–and the regulatory and public scrutiny–that would come from directly discharging waste water into creeks.

Most of this had been done without permits, sometimes without telling the EPA or DOE. The pondcrete was supposed to get shipped elsewhere eventually, while the liquids were to be absorbed into the ground or evaporated by the sun. But that is not what had happened.

What were supposed to be rock-solid blocks of pondcrete turned out to be more like putty. Some were part liquid. To test the consistency, workers often stuck their thumbs into the blocks. Piled atop each other, unprotected from the elements, the blocks began to sag and leak. Liquids containing nitrates, cadmium and low-level radioactive waste began to leach into the ground and run downhill toward Walnut and Woman Creek. There they would sometimes meet the liquids spray-irrigated through a system of sprinklers, for they had also run off into the creeks. Far more effluent had been sprayed than the fields could possibly absorb, particularly since the spraying continued even when the fields were saturated or frozen solid by ice and snow.

By the spring of 1987, FBI agents and prosecutors found, a number of Rockwell employees and outside inspectors had started regularly reporting these conditions to Rocky Flats supervisors. For the most part, there was no response. Except, that is, from the supervisor who threatened workers with big fines if pondcrete production goals weren’t met. And from the foreman who told his workers to “cap” the soft pondcrete blocks by throwing fresh concrete over the spots where inspectors usually stuck their instruments.

Certain memos from DOE regional managers might also be construed as a form of response. One urged DOE headquarters to “send a message to EPA that DOE and its contractors are willing to ‘go to the mat’ in opposing enforcement actions at DOE facilities.” According to an FBI report, when DOE inspector Joseph Krupar did warn Rocky Flats manager Dominic Sanchini about split and leaking pondcrete blocks, Sanchini responded by telling Krupar he was going to “define his access” at the plant. Then Sanchini put a barbed-wire fence and “unauthorized personnel keep out” signs around the pondcrete blocks.

In a way, it seemed to Fimberg, all this was just as shocking as the smoking guns. The investigators had found a pervasive, long-term pattern of disregard for environmental laws, by both the government and its contractors. The DOE had allowed Rockwell to “capture” Rocky Flats. Rockwell even wrote DOE’s letters and permit applications; DOE staffers just retyped them on their letterhead and signed them.

In truth, Fimberg’s team had not exactly discovered this situation. It was known–if not to every citizen, certainly to regulators, politicians and a portion of the informed public–that mountains of hazardous wastes were seeping into the air and the ground at most DOE weapons plants. The situation just had never been regarded as a proper target for criminal prosecution, until the Colorado team fixed on this notion. By November, 1990, Fimberg had come to realize he’d unwittingly taken on not just a weapons plant and its managers but also 40 years of public policy.

He wrestled with the implications. No longer could he pin all the blame on a handful of individuals, particularly since the man most responsible at Rocky Flats–manager Dominic Sanchini–had that month died of cancer. Still, environmental laws hadn’t arrived at Rocky Flats overnight. It seemed to him that Rockwell’s crimes were serious and pervasive. There was still surely a case here to prosecute. There was still surely an important story to tell.

Or so Fimberg thought. Others, it turned out, thought differently. Fimberg, it soon became clear, had lost more than evidence over the months. He’d lost the enthusiasm of his boss.

U.S. Atty. Mike Norton had no desire to prosecute 40 years of public policy. The Republican appointee particularly had no desire to prosecute a dozen years of Reagan-Bush Administration public policy. He’d gotten pulled into this with promises of midnight incinerator burns and exotic labs. He felt betrayed by the FBI and EPA agents’ initial reports.

“We frankly bought into the idea that this place was operating clandestinely, illegally and in a fashion in total disregard for environmental laws,” Norton later explained. “I’m not going to prosecute conduct well known to regulators, for which there was no known scientific solution.”

Perhaps Fimberg in time could have rekindled Norton’s interest, given the U.S. attorney’s trust in the veteran prosecutor. Perhaps Fimberg in time could have convinced Norton he still had a case. By late 1990, however, the Rocky Flats prosecution was no longer a matter of conversation only in the Colorado U.S. attorney’s office. By then, the Justice Department in Washington was sitting at the table with Norton and Fimberg. By then, the Justice Department was making clear that it was in charge.

THE LEGACIES OF THE Ronald Reagan and George Bush administrations are many, but surely one that ranks among the most ignominious is the degradation of the Justice Department. Even Republicans in Washington concede that over the past decade, Justice gained a reputation as the most thoroughly politicized and ethically compromised department in the government.

First under Edwin Meese III, appointed attorney general in 1985, then under Dick Thornburgh and William P. Barr, many of the department’s activities were directed to achieving political goals. According to critics, hiring was based on political loyalty, legal decisions on political ideology. Driven by political appointees who burrowed their way into the bureaucracy, the core agenda involved attacking civil rights gains, criminal defendants’ rights, pornographers and abortion rights. No goal was more favored, though, than reining in the enforcement of newly emerging environmental criminal laws.

The notion of imprisoning 50-year-old white-collar industrial managers just didn’t appeal to everyone who occupied desks at the White House and Justice Department during the Reagan-Bush years. That, at least, has been the conclusion of three recent congressional subcommittee investigations into federal environmental prosecutions. In all sorts of cases, the Democrat-controlled subcommittees kept finding the same story: intervention, restrictions, delays, reduced charges and micro-management of line prosecutors by “Main Justice.” There was, the investigators found, a particular unwillingness at Justice to prosecute individuals or establish personal accountability, especially when the case involved large companies.

In a number of these cases–including Rocky Flats–the principal point man for the Justice Department was Barry Hartman. Hartman is brashly outspoken. Originally from Pennsylvania, he served there in the mid-1980s as deputy general counsel to Gov. Dick Thornburgh, then went into the garment manufacturing business in New Jersey, where he also worked for the 1988 Bush campaign. When Thornburgh became attorney general, he brought Hartman along and eventually placed him in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, first as the No. 2 man, later as its acting head. By then, congressional investigators concluded, Hartman had developed his own independent ties to the White House.

He denies such connections and defends his record, noting that his critics have singled out a handful of the more than 1,000 environmental cases he oversaw. But Hartman’s name almost always came up when congressional investigators asked line prosecutors about political compromise in the Justice Department. Among these prosecutors, one congressional report concluded, “Hartman was viewed as highly antagonistic to environmental criminal prosecutions generally. . . . Hartman once described himself as a ‘political hack’ . . . and many assistant U.S. attorneys feel that this self-depiction is, if anything, understated. Thought to have close ties to industry groups and lobbying organizations, Hartman is generally blamed for the hostile reception given many environmental cases at the divisional level.”

As 1990 drew to an end, Hartman’s impact on the Rocky Flats case became increasingly obvious. “Mr. Norton was in consultation with Barry Hartman throughout Mr. Hartman’s time as the acting assistant attorney general,” recalls Peter Murtha, a Justice Department lawyer who worked with the Colorado team on the Rocky Flats prosecution. “I think it is fair to say that Mr. Norton wanted to make sure that Mr. Hartman felt comfortable with the decisions that he, Mr. Norton, was making throughout the case.”

Making Hartman feel comfortable, it soon became clear, meant never talking with gusto about Rocky Flats. Hartman had soured on the case even more than had U.S. Atty. Norton. “It was a very expensive investigation,” Hartman says now. “Time was ticking. It was costing money. The midnight burning was not panning out. Instead, they’d found stuff was being flushed down toilets into the ground. Now it’s a major investigation into illegal toilets. So the pondcrete didn’t set and leaked. So they f—-d up. Can it be done legally? Can it be done physically at all? It was looking like it was going to be a dirty case.”

Given Hartman’s attitude, it isn’t hard to see why some members of the prosecution team responded positively when Rockwell’s attorneys first broached the subject of a plea bargain at a meeting in Norton’s office on Dec. 17, 1990. Here, after all, was a way out of their ever-widening and increasingly unpopular morass.

Fimberg was still arguing for an aggressive posture. If they were going to settle, he wanted at least misdemeanor indictments against individuals and a punishing fine of $50 million to $80 million against Rockwell. But Peter Murtha, the liaison with Washington, saw it differently. He was so cautious and skeptical, his colleagues sometimes joked that he’d never seen a case he liked. Murtha thought the Rocky Flats case was worth somewhere between $4 and $10 million.

Worried about Fimberg’s ambitions for the case, Murtha wrote a memo to Hartman on Dec. 28, 1990: “We thought it would be appropriate to bring to your attention what may potentially be a substantial disagreement between the United States attorney’s office and the Environmental Crimes Section about what an appropriate plea agree would include. . . . The crux of the potential issue is what this case is worth.” Notes taken a month later, during a Jan. 23, 1991, conference call between Denver prosecutors and Justice Department managers, suggest Norton had already swung from Fimberg to Hartman. “Bottom line, no individual felony charges,” the notes read. “Norton: no misdemeanor charges either . . . no fraud; no false statements. . . . Probably be a deal breaker.”

Fimberg kept fighting all that winter and spring with ever-diminishing effectiveness. Setback followed setback. First, the prosecutors learned that the DOE’s longtime policy of indemnifying its contractors meant the Energy Department–and thus taxpayers–would have to pay any fine levied against Rockwell at trial. That meant only if they settled could they make Rockwell pay its own fine.

Then the prosecutors realized they couldn’t prove a public health impact beyond Rocky Flat’s boundaries. They had plenty of evidence of ground-water contamination and toxic runoff into holding ponds and creeks. But they couldn’t track it from there into the public drinking water supply, at least not on a regular or measurable basis. The downstream city of Broomfield had never seen a blip during its constant monitoring of the Great Western Reservoir.

Nor had scientists ever measured unusual health problems in the area. Maybe there’d been contamination sometime, maybe there were undetected long-term effects. A special Colorado Department of Health panel was talking about signs of radioactive tritium in certain surface waters and plutonium concentrations in sediment at the bottom of the Great Western and Standley Lake reservoirs. But as usual in environmental studies, the scientists were saying all conclusions were premature.

Rockwell, meanwhile, had managed to make an end run around the Colorado prosecutors, as often happened in criminal environmental prosecutions against big corporations. For months, Rockwell attorneys had been campaigning for a review of the case by the Justice Department. On April 9, they finally got their opportunity.

The meeting took place in the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s cavernous conference room in Washington. Richard Stewart, then the division’s head, sat at one end of the conference table, with Fimberg on his left and Hartman on his right. Vincent Fuller, a partner at the powerful and politically connected Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly, sat at the other end. Fuller’s animated presentation lasted 20 minutes. At its core was the notion that Rockwell had done no wrong and that the Department of Energy was at fault.

The DOE’s priority was the production of nuclear warheads, so for many years the department quite consciously failed to bring an aging complex into compliance with a rapidly expanding body of environmental law, Fuller argued. Rockwell acted in good faith, following the DOE’s direction, restrained by DOE budgets. There were no rogue actors. Since Rockwell was following the federal government’s own priorities, it’s wrong to now punish Rockwell if you decide those priorities were misguided.

Besides, Fuller continued, the search was based on sensational allegations that were never proven. Justice probably wouldn’t even have authorized the search without them. And Rockwell’s role has to be considered against the extraordinary regulatory confusion surrounding the application of environmental laws to DOE facilities. The laws themselves are full of ambiguity.

What’s more, Fuller reminded them, Rocky Flats is far from unique–every other DOE facility suffers from the same type of environmental problems. Look at the Fernald plant in Ohio. Look at Hanford, Oak Ridge, West Valley, Savannah River. All have waste storage, treatment and disposal problems. No DOE contractor is able to conform to the letter of environmental laws while running these facilities. No other contractor has faced criminal sanctions, though. Is this fair?

After the Rockwell lawyers filed out of the conference room, all eyes swung to Fimberg for his response. He hesitated, and for good reason.

Underlying the defense attorney’s arguments, Fimberg knew, were the critical and complicated questions at the heart of the Rocky Flats controversy. Ever since the Manhattan Project, the Energy Department and its predecessor agencies indeed had established a widespread institutional culture that had gone on for 40 years, unchallenged by Congress or regulatory agencies. It was a terrible culture–but how do you indict a culture?

On the other hand, Fimberg wondered, what is a culture but a set of individuals acting on the basis of certain values? Couldn’t Rockwell have gone to the DOE and flatly said, we can’t execute our contract without violating the law? Once you put that in a memo, isn’t the Energy secretary going to have to approve violations of the law–or change things? Were violations at other DOE plants really a fair defense? If everyone in the room is nodding his head, does that make it right?

Fimberg had been wrestling with these questions for months. To him, the matter was complex. To him, there were no easy answers. On the one hand, he had to admit that Fuller was making some legitimate points. On the other hand, there still was no denying that Rockwell had violated the law.

“Same old song,” he finally told his waiting colleagues, glancing at Fuller’s now empty seat. From his superiors’ looks, Fimberg understood that the prospect of indicting DOE people was fading. But Fimberg flew back to Denver that afternoon still clinging to the notion of indicting Rockwell’s supervisors at Rocky Flats. All we need, he told himself, is one more revelation, one more discovery.

What looked to be the breakthrough finally came just days later. Until then, the prosecutors had failed to get any insiders to turn informant. One evening, Fimberg had even met with the steelworkers’ union, inviting their cooperation, but he’d gotten nowhere. Rockwell is paying for their employees’ lawyers and keeping track of the workers’ contacts with the FBI, Fimberg had reasoned, while the union is protecting all those $48,000-a-year blue-collar jobs. Now, on April 19, Fimberg turned up the pressure–he mailed official warning letters to eight targets of the grand jury investigation. The maneuver worked. Thus pressured, two lower-level targets soon responded with offers of information about their supervisors.

Armed with these offers, an encouraged Fimberg told FBI Agent Jon Lipsky he thought they could indict three top-level Rockwell managers. Lipsky heartily agreed. Draft indictments were drawn up against several Rockwell officials for the illegal and improper storage of pondcrete, for the runoff of pondcrete into Woman and Walnut creeks, for the knowing failure to stop spray-irrigated sewage effluent from flowing into Woman and Walnut creeks, and for false statements to DOE about the use of closed solar ponds. A prosecutor’s memo called these “only the strongest charges.”

Hartman and Norton weren’t buying it, though. They didn’t care about Fimberg’s new informants or any other breakthrough. In fact, Hartman had decided there should never have been a criminal prosecution brought against Rocky Flats of any sort. He wanted to settle; he wanted to move Rocky Flats off the table.

This was not an entirely indefensible position. With all its complications and vagaries, Rocky Flats surely was a prime candidate for a deal. The critical question, though, was what kind of deal. How tough a settlement to insist upon?

At Fimberg’s urging, Norton had started negotiations that spring by proposing a fine of $52 million. Rockwell responded with a figure closer to $1 million, and a list of core demands that included no individual indictments and no charges of fraud, false statements or conspiracy. Rockwell also wanted a public denial from the prosecutor of the more sensational charges, such as midnight burning. By early July, Norton had pretty much come around to Rockwell’s way of thinking.

On July 8, the U.S. attorney in a memo informed Fimberg he planned to settle for $15 million and announce the settlement in a joint news conference with Rockwell, where he’d “advise that some of the more sensational allegations did not bear out.” Fimberg expressed dismay. A mutually agreed upon statement would be hard to achieve, he wrote back. “They will want bare bones–when do we get to tell our story? This will lend itself to characterizations of collusion, of a sweetheart deal. . . . I have real concern that $15 million is low, in terms of political, public and judicial acceptability.”

Despite Fimberg’s objections, Norton the next day formally offered to settle for $15 million, to be paid by Rockwell without the DOE indemnity. There would be no false statement, conspiracy or fraud charges and no individual indictments if the company pleaded guilty to seven less punishing felonies.

They were still months away from finalizing the deal, but for all intents, the investigation was over. In late July, Peter Murtha, the liaison from the Justice Department, told FBI Agent Lipsky to stop trying to develop evidence for individual indictments. They won’t be part of the plea agreement, Murtha advised, so don’t spin your wheels.

Appalled, Lipsky called supervisory Special Agent Robert J. Chiaradio at FBI headquarters in Washington. Chiaradio confirmed Murtha’s instructions and suggested that Lipsky get in line. Stop whining, stop causing problems, Chiaradio said. The directive, he explained, had come from Neil Cartusciello, head of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes section. Cartusciello thought there was “insufficient evidence” to pursue individuals.

Perhaps Cartusciello did indeed reach this conclusion on his own. Since he was new to his job, however, it is likely that he was briefed by the man who’d hired him, and who had just that month taken over as head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division: Barry Hartman.

Lipsky next turned to Fimberg. He found the prosecutor in his office one morning that July. What’s going on? Lipsky asked, shutting the door and throwing himself into a chair. What’s the status on individuals?

Fimberg and Lipsky eyed each other. It was almost three years to the day since the two men, sitting just where they were now, had excitedly started plotting to “do Rocky Flats.” They were still friends, but relations had started to wear thin. Lipsky thought Fimberg was pulling back, losing his nerve. Fimberg thought Lipsky was letting his judgment get colored by what he wanted to see.

We had the evidence, Lipsky said. You said so yourself, just two months ago.

Fimberg looked away.

Perhaps someone less beset by a sense of complexity, someone less torn by ambivalence, someone more stubborn or more gripped by a single-minded sureness would have held his position. Fimberg, however, wavered now in the face of the isolation from his fellow prosecutors. Wavered just as a DOE manager might have while trying to honor environmental laws from within a hostile institutional culture. Playing the hero, asserting personal moral responsibility, was not such a simple matter after all. “I was only one of four on the team, and the only one pushing for individual indictments,” Fimberg would later say. “No one else had the slightest interest.”

By now, at any rate, his own vision of the case was shaded. Fimberg couldn’t agree with Lipsky on the midnight incinerator burn. He did believe Rocky Flats managers had used the plutonium recovery claim as a way to avoid regulation of the 771 incinerator. DOE on a broad institutional level had endorsed and directed this practice, though, so whom to charge? He also saw some basis for nailing individuals on false statement charges–Rockwell managers had not disclosed some pondcrete leaks and spills or the use of the closed solar ponds. But a plea bargain was now on the table. It would be hard to win at trial, and if they did, the taxpayer would end up paying Rockwell’s fine. If a good deal is likely, what’s the trade-off in the real world?

“I know it’s hard,” he told Lipsky. “There were tough decisions to make. It turned into an increasingly difficult case. This is the best we can do. Other people feel even more strongly on that point than me. It’s a disappointment, I know. But it’s just not going to happen.”

Lipsky leaned forward, his hands on Fimberg’s desk. We could have indicted people, he said.

Fimberg studied Lipsky. He wished he could have a single perspective, like Jon had. Life would be much simpler, he imagined, if he saw only black and white.

“Jon,” he said, “I was outvoted.”

Fimberg didn’t completely surrender. On Aug. 5, days after his confrontation with Lipsky, Fimberg wrote Norton: “It’s my overall sense, Mike, that Rockwell’s achieved its big ticket items. The dollars, while not insignificant, will hardly break the company, and no individuals will be charged. . . . I will continue in my designated role as pushing for the most aggressive settlement possible.”

On Aug. 29, Fimberg wrote Norton again: “I just don’t think Main Justice has the same ‘fire in the belly’ that we do, and I get concerned that they will give up too much just to ‘get it done.’ ”

Since the meeting with Rockwell’s lawyers in Washington that spring, however, Fimberg’s thoughts increasingly had been shifting from the details of the prosecution to the prospect of a grand jury report. Two years before, they’d given the Justice Department’s criminal division two reasons why they wanted to impanel the Colorado district’s first special grand jury: The possibility of a lengthy investigation that would require the “complete energies” of a grand jury, and the possibility of a grand jury report on “issues that did not lead to indictment.” Only a special grand jury can focus on a single case, and only a special grand jury can write such a report.

“One of the important reasons that I requested that a special grand jury be convened . . . was its statutory ability to issue a report,” Norton would later recall. “I believed this ability was critically appropriate. . . . There was recognition, at an early time, that the investigation might disclose important matters which would not be appropriate for indictment, but nonetheless would be appropriate for public disclosure.”

Provided with these reasons, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division had approved the special grand jury. So had Chief U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver, who’d specified in his instructions that “the special grand jury may submit a report to the Court concerning non-criminal misconduct. . . . Thus, through the vehicle of this special grand jury, the public may be assisted in learning of the facts as they relate to Rocky Flats.”

If they had to settle without individual indictments, Fimberg decided in the summer of 1991, they could at least tell the public what has been going on at Rocky Flats and other DOE plants over the past 40 years. If they couldn’t indict an institutional culture in court, they could at least denounce it in public.

Fimberg knew the Rocky Flats grand jurors would jump at the chance to write a scathing report. After meeting monthly for almost two years with Wes McKinley, Ken Peck and the 21 others, he knew just how angry they were at what they’d been hearing. He needed only to harness their anger.

The grand jury report now was paramount for Fimberg. The grand jury report now represented the last, best chance he had to save his case–and himself.

Source link

Hilarious BBC blunder as live performance by legendary band Pulp is wrongly subtitled with lines from Miss Marple

A SONG by Pulp was wrongly subtitled with lines from Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple in a BBC blunder.

Phrases such as “Morning, Miss Marple. How’s the leg?” accompanied Jarvis Cocker.

Hard-of-hearing BBC viewers were baffled as Pulp belted out Spike IslandCredit: Instagram
The song was wrongly subtitled with lines from Agatha Christie’s Miss MarpleCredit: Alamy

Hard-of-hearing viewers were baffled as the frontman belted out Spike Island at the Mercury Prize awards ceremony on Thursday night.

Subtitles as he prowled the stage included, “Oooh then… Then the secretary girl came up with Heather Babcock”.

He also appeared to sing, “Dr Haydock, I would be very distressed if I thought you believed”, as well as “On and on she went” and “Honestly, she did go on so!”

Jarvis, 62, later posted snaps online, and wrote: “It appears our performance was accompanied by…… the subtitles to an episode of Miss Marple!”

LAUR & DISORDER

Brit tennis star in painfully awkward live TV blunder at US Open


Kat-ch up

Glam Sky presenter who made TV blunder is Wimbledon host & dating football chief

The singer, quizzed by police when he wiggled his bum at Michael Jackson at the 1996 Brit Awards, wrote: “Whodunnit?”

He added: “I suspect the butler….”

Fans lapped it up, with some saying they could be real Pulp lyrics.

Another joked, in the style of 1995 classic Common People: “Miss Marple from St Mary Mead she had a thirst for sleuthing.”

Christie’s 1980 movie The Mirror Crack’d, with Angela Lansbury as Miss Marple, was shown earlier on BBC4.

Pulp were up for the award with new album More — but Sam Fender won for People Watching.

Subtitles as he prowled the stage included, ‘Oooh then… Then the secretary girl came up with Heather Babcock’Credit: Instagram
Singer Jarvis Cocker also appeared to sing, ‘Dr Haydock, I would be very distressed if I thought you believed’Credit: Instagram
Fans lapped it up, with some saying they could be real Pulp lyricsCredit: Instagram

Source link

Control, choke points: The battle lines in southern Sudan | Sudan war News

Recent battlefield gains by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) may turn the tide in Kordofan, analysts have told Al Jazeera.

Sudan’s devastating war between the SAF and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has raged for two and a half years, resulting in massive displacement and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, according to the United Nations.

Yet SAF’s capture in September of the strategic city of Bara, which the RSF was using for logistics, supplies, and as a muster point for reinforcements, is seen as a sign that SAF may have swung the pendulum in its favour.

Why is Bara important?

Bara lies about 350km (217 miles) southwest of the capital Khartoum along the “Export Road” used to truck goods from Khartoum to el-Obeid, capital of North Kordofan State.

It also exports its own agricultural products and livestock to the rest of Sudan.

The Khartoum-el-Obeid connection is vital because from el-Obeid, roads lead outwards to South Sudan and Sudan’s east and Darfur in the west.

From Khartoum, roads lead northeast to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where the wartime government was until recently. Roads also lead north to Egypt and east to Eritrea and Ethiopia.

SAF took el-Obeid in February, after a two-year RSF siege, and took Khartoum in March, so taking Bara gave it solid control over the Export Road to use as a supply route, independent Sudanese military and political analyst Akram Ali told Al Jazeera.

Interactive_Sudan-control_map_Oct14-2025_2
(Al Jazeera)

Bara and el-Obeid lie near the westernmost reaches of SAF control, well to the east of el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and the last city SAF holds in the vast western region. Between the two is a stretch of RSF control – and siege on el-Fasher – that SAF has to breach.

For the RSF, keeping Bara and a foothold in Kordofan was important because it allowed it to put pressure on SAF, which holds territory to the north, and to link the areas it controls in Kordofan and Darfur to South Sudan, links it uses to move weapons and fighters.

How did SAF take Bara?

The army launched an offensive on Bara from the south on September 11, while RSF defences were concentrated on the eastern side, analyst Abdul Majeed Abdul Hamid said.

SAF sent continuous drone strikes against RSF targets, then launched the Darfur Track Armed Struggle Movement, an assault force known for mobility and speed, from el-Obeid.

The force successfully engaged and defeated the RSF unit defending Bara, then entered the city with heavy firepower, according to a military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The officer said the operation relied on speed and keeping the RSF occupied on several fronts to prevent it from sending reinforcements.

Most of Bara’s civilians supported SAF, according to Abdul Hamid, and the RSF quickly retreated.

The operation cut off RSF supply and military support lines, he added, isolating their remaining positions in areas such as al-Khuwei to the west and al-Nahud to the east.

For the RSF, keeping Bara and a foothold in Kordofan was important because it allowed it to put pressure on SAF, which holds territory to the north, and to link the areas it controls in Kordofan and Darfur to South Sudan, links it uses to move weapons and fighters.

Losing Bara also meant that the RSF could no longer keep the city of el-Obeid under siege.

Will the RSF lose the Kordofans?

The RSF announced in February this year that it had entered an alliance with the Southern People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N). South Kordofan includes the Abyei region, disputed between Sudan and South Sudan. The SPLM-N controls the vast, isolated Nuba Mountains region in South Kordofan, right up against the border with South Sudan.

However, despite that new stronghold, analysts told Al Jazeera that losing control over the Export Road spells a serious deterioration in the RSF’s power in the Kordofans.

“The army’s entry into el-Obeid marked the beginning of their actual collapse,” said Ali.

Widespread disease outbreak overwhelms hospitals in war-torn Sudan [Screengrab/Al Jazeera]
Widespread disease outbreaks have overwhelmed hospitals in war-torn Sudan [Screengrab/Al Jazeera]

 

An army unit called “Al-Sayyad” – named after a commander killed in the early days of the war – had moved from Rabak, capital of White Nile State, in a campaign that eventually reached el-Obeid.

Political analyst Ahmed Shamukh said liberating Bara opens the door to reactivating the SAF air base in el-Obeid, the largest in Kordofan, after two years of inactivity, “significantly [enhancing] the logistical and combat capabilities of the Sudanese army” and helping SAF’s campaign to expel RSF from the Kordofans.

Taking back all of Kordofan would allow SAF to work towards liberating Darfur, Abdul Hamid said.

“The army has combat experience and personnel capable of liberating Kordofan with the same capabilities it used to retake the cities of central Sudan and the capital,” Abdul Hamid continued.

The war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced more than 10 million in what has become the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

According to the UN, a total of 24.6 million people face acute food insecurity, while 19 million people lack access to safe water and sanitation.

Source link

Russian Fiber-Optic Drones Are Now Reaching Into Ukrainian Cities Deep Behind The Lines

A Russian fiber-optic-controlled first-person view (FPV) drone made a precision strike within the city of Kramatorsk for the first time on Sunday, the city council said. Though no one was injured in the attack, a fiber-optic FPV drone strike on one of the largest cities in the east raised alarms in Ukraine.

Unlike radio-controlled drones, FPV drones that link to their controllers via very long spools of fiber-optic wire are immune to jamming and terrain features that can impede line-of-sight radio signals. While they also have disadvantages, such as having a range defined by the length of the wires they trail and degraded freedom to maneuver, they are hugely threatening due to their resiliency. And the range at which they can reach out is only increasing.

Kramatorsk was home to about 200,000 people before Russia’s all-out invasion, but that has dwindled to about half that population. Located 12 miles from the front lines in Ukraine’s war-torn east, Kramatorsk has come under increasing attack from Russian radio-controlled FPV drones. 

A woman carrying a bag walks near damaged residential buildings following Russian strikes in Kramatorsk on September 15, 2025, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Photo by Tetiana DZHAFAROVA / AFP) (Photo by TETIANA DZHAFAROVA/AFP via Getty Images)
A woman carrying a bag walks near damaged residential buildings following Russian strikes in Kramatorsk on September 15, 2025. (Photo by Tetiana DZHAFAROVA / AFP) TETIANA DZHAFAROVA

Boosting the range of Russia’s fiber-optic-controlled FPV drones extends the depth of the front lines and increasingly puts civilians at risk.

“One strike and one damaged car will not change the security situation on the front line or directly in Kramatorsk, but it demonstrates a trend,” the Ukrainian Radio Liberty media outlet reported. “However, firstly, the Russian troops have demonstrated the reach and vulnerability of the administrative center of Donetsk Oblast to fiber optic. Secondly, if strikes with different types of FPV are scaled up, we can talk about a threat to civilian and military logistics in order to create the prerequisites for a future offensive…”

The video feed from the drone itself is incredibly clear, which is a major feature of this class of FPV drone. On the other hand, a radio-controlled one would have an intermittent video feed dominated by static due to the great distance from its controllers and especially amongst tall buildings and general urban terrain. The video shows the drone flying over a relatively pristine street in Kramatorsk, before making a sharp turn to the left and striking a pickup truck — much like the ones many Ukrainian troops use — parked near an apartment building.

Many were surprised yesterday by the news that a Russian fiber-optic FPV drone flew into Kramatorsk and attacked a car.

But there is nothing surprising here. The war of 2025 is already very different from the war of 2024.
From LBZ to Kram — 20 kilometers. Enemy FPVs can fly even… pic.twitter.com/hTfhJFPcxZ

— Richard Woodruff 🇺🇦 (@frontlinekit) October 6, 2025

Both sides have developed fiber-optic-controlled FPV drones that can now reach as far as 25 miles, but generally, those in operation fly a fraction of that distance carrying much smaller spools of wire. Still, efforts to extend the range to more than 30 miles are underway now, which could be highly problematic for forces operating deep behind enemy lines and civilians, as well.

Russian 50-kilometer fiber-optic spools are undergoing testing. I don’t know which drone they plan to mount them on, but if successful, it would be an impressive increase in operational range. pic.twitter.com/DeGDbn86Cl

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷 (@TheDeadDistrict) October 2, 2025

It’s worth noting that the Russians started the use of fiber optic wires on the FPV drone in the spring of 2024, and Ukraine quickly followed suit. You can read more about that in our original story here. The use of fiber optic cables to transmit the guidance data between the controllers and the FPV drones has become so prevalent on both sides that fields once used for farming are now covered in the strands.

The increasing range of Russia’s fiber-optic-controlled FPVs is worrisome to one of Ukraine’s major players in drone development and production efforts.

“The enemy’s FPV drones can fly even greater distances,” Serhii Sternenko warned on X. “There is no such thing as a rear area up to 30 kilometers (about 18.5 miles) from the front. This needs to be realized now, especially by local officials.”

Sternenko is urging Ukrainian city leaders to adopt new defensive measures to protect civilians.

“All settlements in this zone should already be closing roads with anti-drone nets,” he suggested. You can see a driver’s view of traveling through one such system in the following video.

A Ukrainian logistic route that has covered with the anti drone nets and fence. pic.twitter.com/8O1QQHFPMe

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷 (@TheDeadDistrict) April 5, 2025

These nets are a measure first introduced by Russia and later adopted by Ukraine to create miles-long ‘tunnels’ designed to protect military transport vehicles from drone attacks. Russia has even designed a system to protect buildings with nets.

The Russian city of Belgorod has covered some of its buildings in netting to protect against drone attacks. (Belgorod government)

In addition, Sternenko wants civilian movement on the streets to be limited and ultimately have non-combatants evacuated.

“It will only get worse, because technology doesn’t stand still,” he posited. 

Kramatorsk

Though fiber optic cables increase the range of FPV drones, there are also limitations, as we have previously discussed and touched on at the opening of this article.

The extra weight of the large spools needed to operate over long distances slows them down and makes them less maneuverable. In addition, environmental factors come into play, the head of Ukraine’s defense tech incubator recently told us. Just because such a drone can reach 25 miles doesn’t mean it will.

“It depends on what we are measuring, the length of the fiber optics, or the distance between the ground station and the target,” Andriy Hyrtseniuk, the new head of Ukraine’s Brave1, told us. “It’s two different stories because, because of the wind, the fiber optics is moving,” reducing the range of these drones.

KOSTIANTYNIVKA, UKRAINE - JUNE 18: Pilots of the 28th mechanised brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine test a fibre optic FPV drone with RPG munition on June 18, 2025 near Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Region, Ukraine. Russian forces have recently increased offensive activity as they attempt to capture Kostiantynivka in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, advancing on the town from three sides. (Photo by Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images)
The size of the fiber optic cable spools increases the range, but the added weight can also decrease maneuverability and speed. (Photo by Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images) Libkos

Still, given the advantages offered by longer fiber optic cables, both sides are in a race to increase their distance, Hyrtseniuk explained.

“This is very similar to the game of cat and mouse, and the innovations are enhancing [the range] very, very quickly,” he stated.

Ukraine was slower to develop the fiber-optic-controlled FPV drones, but it is catching up.

“This is actually one of the very few areas where Russia was faster than we were, but we are very quickly reducing the [gap],” he posited. “And right now, more than 35 Ukrainian companies are building the fiber optic drones and have scaled their production. So right now we are comparable with Russia.”

“Of course,” he added, “we and the Russians are working on the increasing distance and increasing lengths of the fiber optics…I don’t want to give more detailed information about fiber optics, but the level of 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) was completely reached, and it works.”

There has been very little movement on the front lines, providing Ukraine a degree of security within a dozen or so miles from them due to Russia’s lack of air superiority. But AI-infused drone technology, using Ukraine’s own telecom network to control long-range drones far beyond the front, and long-range fiber optic drones could disrupt this delicate balance. We discussed how AI-enabled Shaheds could have a massive impact on the war in a story we wrote last year. Even putting nearby towns at risk of highly resilient fiber-optic FPVs could have major impacts, especially on both sides’ ability to supply troops at the front.

So far, Kramatorsk is battered, but 100,000 people still call it home. Right now, cable-guided FPV drones are an emerging threat to this city. However, as we have seen across the battlefield, the ability to extend the range of these weapons makes defending against them even harder.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Howard is a Senior Staff Writer for The War Zone, and a former Senior Managing Editor for Military Times. Prior to this, he covered military affairs for the Tampa Bay Times as a Senior Writer. Howard’s work has appeared in various publications including Yahoo News, RealClearDefense, and Air Force Times.


Tyler’s passion is the study of military technology, strategy, and foreign policy and he has fostered a dominant voice on those topics in the defense media space. He was the creator of the hugely popular defense site Foxtrot Alpha before developing The War Zone.




Source link

Delta Air Lines: A First-Class Choice for Investors

The tally favors Delta over United.

When people in the U.S. think about flying, Delta Air Lines (DAL 0.74%) and United Airlines (UAL -1.01%) might be the first companies that come to mind. They both have large market capitalizations and many travelers have flown with one or the other, but they employ very different strategies. Because of this difference, investors can tell which airline is truly first-class.

Different tracks

United CEO Scott Kirby is betting on initiatives such as adding planes and making upgrades like better in-flight Wi-Fi. I like this plan, but it also has risks. Operational mistakes, rising labor costs, and headwinds in other countries are cutting into United’s profits.

A commercial airliner flying against blue sky and white clouds.

Image source: Getty Images.

Delta, led by CEO Ed Bastian, is acting differently. Instead of rushing to get more planes, Delta is focusing on making customers happier and being careful with money. The airline is investing in things like Delta Concierge AI, which is supposed to make travel feel more personal and smooth. Its business model counts on premium seats and loyalty programs. Almost 60% of Delta’s money now comes from these sought-after seats and perks.

Delta is often ranked high in customer surveys and for being on time. This good reputation helps it avoid the price wars that can quickly hurt profits in the airline business.

A cleaner balance sheet

Airlines traditionally carry a lot of debt, but Delta is different here, too. In the most recent quarter, Delta had about $16 billion in net debt, equating to a 30 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio (which shows how much of the business’s value has been financed with debt). This is quite a lot, but it is less than United’s $18 billion, which gives it a 36 net-debt-to-enterprise-value ratio.

This difference is important. Delta has its best credit rating in years, and leaders have said that controlling debt is a main goal. United, on the other hand, has more debt, which makes it riskier if fuel prices go up, travel decreases, or international expansion plans run into hiccups and the business is pressured.

Hubs vs. horizons

The two airlines also use their networks differently. Delta has strong hubs in cities such as Atlanta, which allow it to group flights together and run its operations smoothly. United is more focused on international growth, which could be beneficial if everything goes well, but it is more complex and risky. Recent global issues, including tariffs and travel restrictions have revealed how fragile this type of growth can be.

By the numbers

The financial results confirm the story. Delta regularly has higher operating and profit margins than United, and it still manages to increase revenue at a steady rate. It also makes more free cash flow, which is needed for a company to pay down debt and give money back to shareholders. Delta’s stock yields about 1.3% at current prices, while United does not pay a dividend.

Even with its stronger financial base, Delta’s stock is slightly cheaper than United’s. Delta’s valuation is about 6.9 based on enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), compared to 10.6 for United. Investors are paying less for a company that makes more reliable profits and is better managed.

What matters for investors

United’s growth plan sounds exciting, and it might work if international markets do well and its operations run smoothly. But there are a lot of risky ifs. For investors who want more reliable returns, Delta’s mix of reliability, profits, and a strong financial base makes it a safer choice.

Delta could be harmed by rising fuel prices, labor disputes, or a decrease in travel. But compared to United’s game plan, the company seems better prepared to handle potential complications without causing trouble for shareholders.

If you had to pay more for a dollar of earnings from either of these airlines, which would it be: The one pursuing growth with a lot of debt, or the one quietly producing higher margins, happier customers, and a stronger financial base?

For me, the choice is clear. Delta isn’t just another airline stock — it’s the first-class option in the sector.

Jun Ho has no position in the mentioned stocks. The Motley Fool recommends Delta Air Lines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Source link

Italy smashed by brutal floods turning railway lines into rivers & submerging villages as choppers rescue trapped locals

ITALY has been battered by brutal floods after a wave of torrential rainfall swamped vast parts of the north.

Streets and railways erupted into rivers, trapping people in cars and houses, and hundreds of school children had to be rescued from flood waters.

A firefighter surveys a flooded, debris-strewn street in Como, Italy.

8

Rescuers work to clear a landslide along the Como-Chiasso railway lineCredit: Vigili del fuoco
A helicopter rescue worker being lowered to flood victims in Meda, Brianza, Lombardy.

8

Helicopter rescue of a woman with a newborn baby in MedaCredit: Vigili Del Fuoco
Firefighters rescue a driver stuck in a car in a flooded underpass in Turate, Como.

8

A man is rescued from inside a stranded car in TurateCredit: Vigili del Fuoco

North-western Italy swallowed the worst of the weather, with orange alerts issued for parts of Lombardy and Liguria on Sunday, but the capital Milan has also suffered with severe rainfall on Monday night.

In Meda, Lombardy, cars were picked up by the surging water and taken away down the streets.

One clip shows the powerful river depositing a car on top of another – while a railway track can be seen full to the brim with gushing brown water.

The Seveso river which runs through Milan burst its banks and completely submerged several neighbourhoods, and the Lambro is also threatening to overflow in the city.

Specialised flood vehicles had to rescue around 300 children stranded in schools in the Niguarda district of Milan.

In Cabiate, Como province, fire crews plucked residents from swamped neighbourhoods by winching them up to helicopters after the Tarò River overflowed.

They also combed the streets checking submerged vehicles for anyone trapped inside.

Landslides and flooding have brought chaos to the Bormida Valley in Lugaria, and most of the region’s schools have been forced to shut.

Water spurted up through manhole covers along the busy Via Vittorini road – where flood defences have been erected to protect homes.

Milan’s Palace of Justice has been forced to shut down after water pooled inside and the power had to be turned off.

Child dead after horror floods hit Spain holiday hotspot sparking travel chaos with flights cancelled & more rain coming

Milan’s Civil Protection Councilor, Marco Granelli, urged all residents to exercise “maximum caution”.

More than 70 emergency calls have been put into the fire service amid the watery mayhem.

The flooding was caused by heavy storms which swept across the north of the country.

A German tourist is currently reported to be missing in Piedmont after flash flooding, with a search operation underway.

Two cars stuck in brown floodwaters in Meda, Italy, due to the overflowing Taro River.

8

A car is deposited onto another one by flood waters in MedaCredit: X/@Top_Disaster
Vigili del fuoco rescuing children from flooded Niguarda in Milan.

8

Authorities had to rescue 200 stranded children from a school in MilanCredit: Vigili del Fuoco
Flooded train tracks at a station during heavy rain in Northern Italy.

8

An entire railway track was flooded in northern ItalyCredit: X/@ViralBased

Officials said more than 650 emergency interventions were carried out across Lombardy, with over 200 firefighters mobilized.

A mother and her 10-month-old baby were rescued from the roof of their car in Monza and Brianza province after being trapped by floodwaters.

In Florence, a pine tree collapsed onto a parked van, though no injuries were reported.

Weather forecasters said unstable conditions would continue in the coming days, with thunderstorms forecast for central and northern Italy and temperatures expected to fall.

Heavy rainfall could also extend to southern regions over the weekend.

Italy‘s flood trouble follows similar scenes in Spain.

One child died as torrential floods continue to wreak havoc across a Spanish holiday hotspot.

Horror weather sparked travel chaos with flights cancelled and trains abandoned due to fallen trees on the tracks – as officials warn of more rain to come.

Heavy rainfall causes severe flooding that destroys homes in Blevio, Lombardy, Italy.

8

Severe flooding due to heavy rainfall has destroyed homes in Blevio, LombardyCredit: X/@BelarusInside
Aerial view of a town submerged in floodwaters.

8

Whole neighbourhood of Meda, Lombardy, were underwater

Source link

Is Delta Air Lines Stock a Buy After a Strong Earnings Report?

Delta just posted solid results and reiterated its outlook. Now the question is whether the stock’s valuation leaves enough upside for investors.

Last Wednesday, Delta Air Lines (DAL -0.83%) delivered a strong June-quarter update and reiterated its 2025 outlook, helping steady sentiment after a choppy year for airlines. The Atlanta-based carrier, one of the largest global network airlines, highlighted resilient premium demand, steady co-brand card economics, and progress on costs — all while acknowledging ongoing softness in economy seats.

The mix between main cabin and premium cabins has become a key storyline for Delta. Premium revenue and loyalty economics are doing more heavy lifting, while management trims weaker main cabin flying and leans into higher-margin products. With this backdrop, are shares a buy? More specifically, with guidance intact and premium resilience evident, do shares offer an attractive risk-reward today?

A commercial airplane flying through the air.

Image source: Getty Images.

Recent results underline resilience

If there’s a meaningful slowdown in travel, Delta isn’t seeing it. The company’s second quarter produced record revenue and double-digit margins, giving management enough confidence to reiterate its full-year guidance. In the quarter, operating revenue was roughly $16.6 billion, operating margin was 13%, and earnings per share landed at $2.10 on the company’s non-GAAP basis. Management guided the September quarter to flat to up low-single-digit revenue growth year over year and a 9% to 11% operating margin, and reaffirmed full-year targets for earnings per share of $5.25 to $6.25 and free cash flow of $3 billion to $4 billion.

Beyond the headline numbers, the mix story stood out. Management said in the company’s second-quarter earnings call that “main cabin margins remain soft,” while reiterating that diversified revenue streams — credit card remuneration, loyalty, and premium cabins — now represent a large slice of the business. That matches comments on the call that softness is “largely contained to main cabin,” with premium products and the Delta-American Express partnership offsetting the pressure.

Asked whether the premium outperformance would persist, Delta president Glen Hauenstein said, “there’s nothing in any of the forward bookings that would have us indicate that there is a diminishing demand for premium cabins or services,” adding that Delta continues to evaluate aircraft layouts to “put more and more premium” seats on board. In addressing main cabin weakness, Hauenstein explained that the company is removing the “weakest trips,” often off-peak departures midweek or very early or late, to consolidate demand and improve unit revenues.

What it means for the stock

After this update, Delta provided an upbeat near-term revenue outlook and reaffirmed profit guidance, pointing to steady demand and industry capacity adjustments. Management now expects third-quarter revenue to be up about 2% to 4% year over year, and it provided earnings guidance of $1.25 to $1.75 per share.

Overall, this guidance signals that premium demand and loyalty revenue are cushioning the main cabin softness. And that industry supply is tightening where it’s least painful — the lower end of the market.

Valuation helps the case for the stock. With shares recently around $60 to $61, and a 2025 earnings target of $5.25 to $6.25 per share, Delta trades at roughly 10 to 11 times this year’s expected earnings — reasonable for a carrier producing double-digit margins and multibillion-dollar free cash flow. The company also raised its quarterly dividend by 25% earlier this year; at recent prices, the annualized dividend yield at about 1.2%, a modest payout that still signals confidence in cash generation.

There are risks. Main cabin softness could linger longer than expected, especially if consumer budgets tighten or international shoulder-season strength fades. Jet fuel and labor remain key cost variables, and any mistimed capacity reductions could pressure unit economics. But management is already trimming off-peak flying, expanding premium seating, and leaning on high-quality loyalty economics — strategies that can protect margins while demand normalizes.

Stepping back reveals that the picture is balanced but constructive, and ultimately good enough to make the stock a buy. Solid June-quarter profitability, guidance reaffirmation, resilient premium demand, and capacity discipline all support the view that Delta’s earnings power is intact. At a valuation that is not stretched, the shares look like a reasonable way to participate if premium strength and industry supply rationalization continue to play out. For investors comfortable with the usual airline cyclicality, Delta’s mix of premium momentum, loyalty cash flows, and cost focus makes the stock a credible buy candidate today.

Daniel Sparks and his clients have no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Delta Air Lines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Source link

Analysis: Israel leaps over red lines in attack on Qatari capital Doha | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Israel had no intention of covering up its involvement in Tuesday’s attack on Doha – within minutes of the explosions being heard in the Qatari capital, Israeli officials were claiming responsibility in the media.

And not long after, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly took responsibility for the attack on several Hamas leaders.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility,” the statement said.

The attack marks yet another escalation by Israel – the latest in a series that has included launching a war against Iran, occupying more land in Syria, killing the leadership of the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and the killing of more than 64,500 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since its war there began.

But this attack marks a new frontier in what Israel believes it can get away with: a direct attack on a United States ally – Qatar hosts the largest US military base in the region – that has been leading negotiations to secure a ceasefire deal and release Israeli captives from Gaza.

“We’ve seen that Israel fires in crowded and residential areas and in capitals across the Middle East as it pleases,” Mairav Zonszein, the International Crisis Group’s Senior Israel Analyst, told Al Jazeera. “And it continues to do so, and will continue to do so, [if no one] takes serious action to stop it.”

The attack took many by surprise because it went beyond what Palestinian defence analyst Hamze Attar called, “traditional Mossad [Israeli intelligence] work”, such as assassinations through car bombs, poison, or gun or sniper attacks.

“I don’t think … the Qataris expected that Israel would bomb Doha,” he said.

Cinzia Bianco, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that Israel’s previous attacks around the world meant “the Qataris knew that they were not completely off limits, but obviously no one anticipated a direct attack, and just the defiance and unhinged recklessness of it surprised, I would say, everyone”.

Israel has so far received little pushback for its actions from the US – both under current President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden. In the first comments from the White House on the attack, a statement from Trump said that while the US had been informed of the attack, Israel had carried out the attack unilaterally. The statement added that the attack did not advance Israeli or American goals, but that hitting Hamas was a “worthy goal”.

“I don’t think, analytically speaking, that Israel would carry out any such attack without an American green light,” said Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara. “If America indeed did not give a green light, we should be hearing a condemnation coming any minute … The Trump administration needs to condemn this behaviour by its client, Israel, while [ceasefire] negotiations are going on.”

End of ceasefire negotiations?

Those ceasefire negotiations are discussing a deal that Trump has pushed for himself, but with the caveat that the US president has taken to issuing his own threats towards Hamas and Gaza should a deal not be reached.

That has implied that the Palestinian group has been the main barrier to a deal – but, in reality, Hamas has agreed to past ceasefire proposals, only to find Israel rejects deals it has previously agreed to, or changes the parameters of the negotiations.

The Trump administration previously pushed for a deal that would include the partial release of Israeli captives and a temporary pause in the fighting during which negotiations for a permanent end to the war would continue.

But Israel rejected that after initially supporting it, and the current deal being proposed calls for Hamas to release all captives, but only gets a temporary pause in the fighting in return.

Coupled with Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza City, where it has demanded all Palestinians leave, and its insistence that Hamas be destroyed, it looks likely that Israel plans to continue its war, whatever the outcome of the negotiations.

“I think the bottom line here is that Israel clearly is not interested in any kind of ceasefire, or negotiations for a ceasefire, [and] that the reports about Trump’s proposal of negotiating with Hamas, whatever this revised new offer was, was all a ruse and theatre,” said Zonszein.

“And of course, there’s no expectation that taking out [Hamas’s] political leadership in Doha is going to be some kind of strategic game changer in Israel’s war on Gaza,” she added.

Other analysts agreed with that perspective.

“Israel has taken its contempt for negotiations, and for international law and respect for [the] sovereignty of states to a new level of transparency,” said Daniel Levy, president of the US/Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator in the 1990s and early 2000s. “We should have long since been past the point where there was any doubt from any fair-minded person as to whether Israel is negotiating in good faith.”

Qatar reaction

Qatar has long had a role as a regional and international mediator, keeping good relations with both the United States and Iran, for example.

While it does not have relations with Israel, Qatar has hosted Israeli negotiators for ceasefire talks since the start of the war in October 2023, and has previously coordinated with Israel over providing aid to Gaza before the war.

“Qatar is one of the countries that is trying the hardest to calm the situation in Gaza and bring both parties out of the current war … but Israel has not recognised these efforts,” said Abdullah al-Imadi, a writer and journalist based in Doha.

But Qatar has begun to be dragged into the regional violence, with an attack from Iran on the US base at Al Udeid in June – which Iran emphasised was not directed at Qatar – and now the Israeli attack in Doha.

Al-Imadi believes that Qatar will attempt to “draw more international attention to the Israeli regime’s violations of all international laws and conventions” at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in a few days.

Qatar will seek “to mobilise international public opinion to pressure Israel to submit and respect the sovereignty of states”, said al-Imadi.

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said that he expected officials from Qatar and the wider Gulf Cooperation Council would be “reaching out to their US counterparts to assess reports that the administration greenlit this attack”.

“If accurate, [that] strikes at the very heart of the US-Gulf states security and defence partnership in ways that Iran’s strike on Qatar in June did not,” said Ulrichsen.

Analysts added that regional states needed to come together to push back against Israel.

“Hosting US bases and US military forces was an effective form of deterrence, [but that has] now evaporated,” Bianco said. “The GCC response may be a realisation that the US security guarantees are no longer as valuable as they have been thought to be for so long.”

“No one is actually safe, and nothing is really off the table,” Bianco said. “So of course, it has implications also for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and so on and so forth.”

“Every state in the region should have an interest in ending this impunity because the Israeli Air Force and its bombs are coming to your neighbourhood if you don’t come together to put a stop to this,” said Levy.

“The question should be asked and the choice placed in front of the US: Do you want relations with the rest of the region? Or do you want to indulge Israeli criminality?”

Source link

Painting lines on football fields? That’s a job for robots now

Shaun Ilten had a problem. The senior director of turf and grounds for the Galaxy and Dignity Health Sports Park had 26 full-size practice fields, two game fields and a warm-up pitch to line ahead of last winter’s Coachella Valley soccer tournament. And he had less than five days to do it.

Since it takes three people nearly two hours to lay out and paint boundary lines on just one field, the math said Ilten wasn’t going to make it.

“It’s just not possible to do it all by hand,” he said.

So he decided to skip the hand part and give the task to a couple of robots, who were able to square out and paint each field in about a quarter the time human hands would have needed. Without the robots, the largest preseason professional soccer event in the U.S. would have necessarily been a lot smaller.

“There would just be no way that it would be humanly possible,” Ilten said.

  • Share via

What made it possible was Turf Tank, a GPS-linked machine about the size of large beach cooler that can paint athletic fields of any size for any sport. It was the brainchild of Jason Aldridge, an Atlanta-based entrepreneur with a long history of using technology to innovate workplaces, from restaurants and telecommunications to shipping and sports.

The idea of using technology and robotics to relieve groundskeepers of the drudgery of striping athletic fields came to Aldridge about nine years ago, while he was watching business-reality TV show “Shark Tank” with his son. It was, he said, an ancient ritual that needed a modern solution.

“Even back to the Olympics in ancient Greece, they used to line the lanes to run the sprints,” he said.

A look at the Turf Tank robot for painting field lines.

A look at the Turf Tank robot for painting field lines.

(Courtesy of Turf Tank)

Months later he partnered with Denmark developers, who four years earlier had designed a prototype robot based on a similar concept, and in 2017, he said, he sold his first two Turf Tanks to the Sozo Sports Complex in Yakima, Wash., and the Commonwealth Soccer Club in Lexington, Ky.

Since then Turf Tank has grown into a company with more than 200 employees, tens of millions of dollars in annual sales and 5,000 clients, among them San Diego FC, the Galaxy, LAFC, Angel City, eight NFL teams and hundreds of colleges, including Pepperdine, California, UC Santa Barbara and Loyola Marymount. Turf Tank also drew the stylized on-field logo for last month’s MLB All-Star Game in Atlanta.

Two other Danish companies — Traqnology and TinyMobileRobots, whose robots have marked more than 2 million fields worldwide, the company says — offer similar services, as does the Swiss company Swozi and Singapore’s FJDynamics. But Turf Tank claims to be the dominant force in the U.S. market.

The Turf Tank robots, which weight up to 132 pounds and can hold 5.3 gallons of paint, are controlled by a computer tablet and guided by GPS technology linked to a portable base station, which acts as a reference point. All a user has to do is enter the dimensions of the field — the length of the sidelines, the width of the field — into a tablet and the robot does the rest in as little as 24 minutes.

Still the concept of autonomous robots was a tough sell for people who are used to doing things by hand and not on a keyboard. Although it sounded like a good idea, most groundskeepers had to be convinced of the accuracy and reliability of the robots.

Aldridge tried to sell the University of Alabama on the technology for Bryant-Denny Stadium on a scorching July day. The Turf Tank drew the horizontal and vertical lines without issue but the grounds crew director was certain it couldn’t match the precision and accuracy needed to paint hash marks down the center of the football field. So Aldridge took him to lunch and when they returned there was 160 perfect hash marks, each four inches wide, two feet long and 60 feet from the sidelines.

The University of Alabama, Aldridge said, now has three robots, two for athletics and one for intramural fields.

Ilten also had more doubt than conviction at first.

“I was skeptical when they first reached out to me, just because of how it works. It’s all GPS. If something gets in its way, is it going to go rogue?” he said. “But they brought it out, did a demo and I measured the lines after it was done and they were within a centimeter.”

That was 2019 and Ilten now has three robots at Dignity Health Sports Park which he uses to line the main stadium field for football, rugby and lacrosse and the surrounding practice fields for soccer. (For Galaxy games he prefers to mark the pitch the old-fashioned way, with a wheel-to-wheeler roller, which allows him to use a thicker and brighter paint.)

“It just makes everything a little bit more efficient,” said Ilten, who manages a staff of 20. “Instead of having two or three guys take an hour and half to line a field, I can send one guy out and it takes 35-40 minutes.”

But the bulk of Turf Tank’s customers don’t come from pro or major college teams. The time-saving the robots bring can be life-changing for high school groundskeepers and local park directors, who often must line multiple fields in a day.

“It was a pain point,” said Aldridge, 48. “They go to school to learn how to grow grass. Painting a field has kind of been that part of the job that wasn’t what they really wanted to do, but it was a huge necessity.

“It’s like the icing on the cake, right? Building a beautiful field, that’s kind of where our robots come in.”

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

Source link

National pride is declining in America. And it’s splitting by party lines, new Gallup polling shows

Only 36% of Democrats say they’re “extremely” or “very” proud to be American, according to a new Gallup poll, reflecting a dramatic decline in national pride that’s also clear among young people.

The findings are a stark illustration of how many — but not all — Americans have felt less of a sense of pride in their country over the past decade. The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001. That includes all four years of Republican President Trump’s first term.

Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults who are part of Generation Z, which is defined as those born from 1997 to 2012, expressed a high level of pride in being American in Gallup surveys conducted in the past five years, on average. That’s compared with about 6 in 10 millennials — those born between 1980 and 1996 — and at least 7 in 10 U.S. adults in older generations.

“Each generation is less patriotic than the prior generation, and Gen Z is definitely much lower than anybody else,” said Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup. “But even among the older generations, we see that they’re less patriotic than the ones before them, and they’ve become less patriotic over time. That’s primarily driven by Democrats within those generations.”

A slow erosion in national pride

America’s decline in national pride has been a slow erosion, with a steady downtick in Gallup’s data since January 2001, when the question was first asked.

Even during the tumultuous early years of the Iraq War, the vast majority of U.S. adults, whether Republican or Democrat, said they were “extremely” or “very” proud to be American. At that point, about 9 in 10 were “extremely” or “very” proud to be American. That remained high in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the consensus around American pride slipped in the years that followed, dropping to about 8 in 10 in 2006 and continuing a gradual decline.

Now, 58% of U.S. adults say that, in a downward shift that’s been driven almost entirely by Democrats and independents. The vast majority of Republicans continue to say they’re proud to be American.

Independents’ pride in their national identity hit a new low in the most recent survey, at 53%, largely following that pattern of gradual decline.

Democrats’ diminished pride in being American is more clearly linked to Trump’s time in office. When Trump first entered the White House, in 2017, about two-thirds of Democrats said they were proud to be American. That had fallen to 42% by 2020, just before Trump lost reelection to Democrat Joe Biden.

But while Democrats’ sense of national pride rebounded when Biden took office, it didn’t go back to its pre-Trump levels.

“It’s not just a Trump story,” Jones said. “Something else is going on, and I think it’s just younger generations coming in and not being as patriotic as older people.”

Republicans and Democrats split on patriotism

Other recent polling shows that Democrats and independents are less likely than Republicans to say that expressing patriotism is important or to feel a sense of pride in their national leaders.

Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans in a 2024 SSRS poll said they believed patriotism has a positive impact on the United States, with Democrats more divided: 45% said patriotism had a positive impact on the country, while 37% said it was negative.

But a more general sense of discontent was clear on both sides of the aisle earlier this year, when a CNN/SSRS poll found that fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats and Republicans said “proud” described the way they felt about politics in America today.

In that survey, most Americans across the political spectrum said they were “disappointed” or “frustrated” with the country’s politics.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Fine Cracks and Major Fault Lines in South Africa’s Foreign Policy Under Ramaphosa

South Africa’s foreign policy has traditionally rested on three pillars: human rights advocacy, multilateralism, and solidarity with the Global South. Post-apartheid, Pretoria positioned itself as a mediator in global conflicts, a champion of African interests, and a voice against imperialism. However, under Ramaphosa’s administration, this identity appears blurred. The guiding principles remain on paper, but in practice, foreign policy decisions often seem reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal political pressures. This disconnect between ideals and implementation is where the cracks begin to show.

South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa presents a contradictory and increasingly incoherent landscape. While the country once proudly stood on the global stage as a principled voice of moral authority, particularly in the post-apartheid era, recent trends reveal a foreign policy marred by inconsistency, political improvisation, and a diminishing institutional role for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). These developments expose both the fine cracks and widening chasms in South Africa’s diplomatic posture.

South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been one of its most vocal and consistent foreign policy markers in recent years. Ramaphosa’s government has taken a firm stance in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, even leading the charge at the International Court of Justice to accuse Israel of genocide. This has resonated with domestic constituencies, particularly those with historical sympathies for the Palestinian cause. However, critics argue that this moral clarity is selectively applied. South Africa’s silence or caution on atrocities in other regions, such as Xinjiang and the Tigray conflict, undermines the moral authority it seeks to project to the world.

Another troubling issue has been South Africa’s muted and inconsistent response to international propaganda regarding so-called “white genocide” or the “murder of white farmers.” This narrative, often amplified by far-right groups abroad, misrepresents rural crime in South Africa and distorts complex socio-economic realities for political gain. Yet, Ramaphosa’s administration has not proactively countered these claims with a sustained international communication strategy. The absence of a clear and robust rebuttal not only damages the country’s image but also allows disinformation to fester in influential circles abroad.

A more subtle but revealing fault line lies in how foreign policy is shaped to accommodate powerful economic actors. South Africa’s reported willingness to bend B-BBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) rules to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate raises deeper questions. On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to expand connectivity and embrace digital innovation. On the other, such decisions appear to signal that policy can be suspended or softened when big business is involved. This flexibility undermines the credibility of domestic policy frameworks and opens South Africa up to accusations of inconsistency or even opportunism.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), once a hub of strategic thinking and diplomacy, now seems increasingly peripheral. Under Ramaphosa, DIRCO has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative voice on foreign policy. The lack of clarity in positions, delays in diplomatic appointments, and an overall sense of drift reflect a department in decline. This vacuum has created space for a troubling trend: the proliferation of unofficial and undisciplined commentary on foreign policy matters by ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, whose portfolio is far-fetched from foreign policy.

In recent years, it has become common for various ANC figures, some holding no official position in international affairs, to make bold and, at times, incendiary statements on global matters. Whether it’s views on BRICS, Russia’s war in Ukraine, or Israel-Palestine, these statements often contradict each other or official government policy. This free-for-all has consequences. It undermines diplomatic coherence, confuses international partners, and erodes confidence in Pretoria’s reliability as a global actor.

At best, South Africa’s current foreign policy could be described as fragmented realism wrapped in rhetorical idealism. At worst, it is ad hoc, domestically driven, and lacking a unifying vision. It is unclear whether Ramaphosa’s government is intentionally pursuing a flexible and pragmatic foreign policy or whether it is simply reacting to events without a strong guiding compass. The blurred lines between party, government, and department make it difficult to distinguish strategic priorities from political expediency.

If South Africa hopes to retain its voice on the international stage, it must begin by consolidating its foreign policy machinery. DIRCO must be empowered, not sidelined. Policy statements must be consistent, not contradictory. Foreign engagement must be principled, not selectively moralistic or economically opportunistic. The world is watching South Africa’s foreign policy circles with keen interest; it is confused by what it sees. The time to fix these cracks, both fine and foundational, is now.

South Africa cannot afford to be a bystander amid the seismic shifts shaping global politics. In an era marked by rising geopolitical tensions, great power rivalries, and contested norms, a passive or ambiguous foreign policy amounts to self-marginalization. South Africa’s historical legacy as a nation that transitioned from apartheid through global solidarity and principled diplomacy demands that it play a more assertive role in international affairs.

A firm, values-based stance in global politics not only reaffirms South Africa’s own agency but also sets a precedent for the African continent. Africa, often treated as a passive recipient of global outcomes, needs bold leadership among its middle powers. By taking principled and consistent positions on international issues from human rights to economic justice, South Africa can embolden its neighbors to speak with greater unity and confidence on the global stage.

In this context, South Africa’s role is not just national—it is continental. A coherent and courageous foreign policy can catalyze a broader African voice in global governance, helping to redefine Africa’s place not as a bargaining chip in great power politics, but as a serious actor in shaping a fairer, more multipolar world order.

Source link

Contributor: The awful optics of uniformed troops cheering Trump’s partisan applause lines

This past week Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump spoke at a rally. Trump’s speech seemed familiar: Disparage Los Angeles (“trash heap”). Criticize Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass (“incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists”). Restate grievances about the 2020 election (“rigged and stolen”). Chide the crowd to support the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“You better push your favorite congressmen”).

But this speech was different from his others. The location was Ft. Bragg in North Carolina — and the audience was mostly soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, the “All Americans.” Internal unit communications revealed soldiers at the rally were screened based on political leanings and physical appearance. “If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration,” the guidance advised, “and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out.”

So what followed was to be expected. A sea of young soldiers in uniform — selected for their preference for the president — cheering and clapping for partisan commentary. This obviously violates Defense Department regulations. Heck, it’s even spelled out in a handy Pentagon FAQ:

Q. Can I ever wear my uniform when I attend political events?

A. No; military members must refrain from participating in political activity while in military uniform in accordance with both DoDD 1344.10 and DoDI 1344.01. This prohibition applies to all Armed Forces members.

But what happened during Trump’s appearance at the Army base is worse than breaking regs. The commander in chief forced an important unit to choose sides. He broke the All Americans in two. In essence, his statement to the troops there was: “Those who like me and my politics, come to my rally. The rest of you — beat it.” (Maybe we should start calling them the “Some Americans.”)

Imagine what it was like the day after. The soldiers who chose not to attend wondered how their next rating would go. Some lieutenant from California worried if his commander now has a problem with where he’s from — and is checking whether he was at the rally. Maybe it’s better if he wasn’t, and he instead chose to abide by Defense regulations?

No matter which way you lean, that speech injected partisan acid into the 82nd Airborne. And it will drip down and corrode from the stars at the top to the lowest-ranking private.

Militaries require extraordinary cohesion to function in combat. For those of us who’ve chosen this profession, one thing is burned into our brains from that very first day our hair’s shorn off: We’re all we’ve got. There’s nobody else. When you are hundreds and thousands of miles away from everyone else you’ve ever known, and you’re there for weeks and months and a year, you realize just how important the person next to you is, regardless of where they’ve come from, who their parents are, or whether their community votes red or blue.

Fighting units are like five separate fingers that form a fist. Partisan acid burns and weakens our fist.

Then there are the indirect effects. This speech damaged the military’s standing with a large swath of America. The image of soldiers cheering the partisan applause lines of a commander in chief who just sent thousands of troops to Los Angeles over the state’s objections? Not a good look.

These optics risk ruining the military’s trust with roughly half of America. The military is the last remaining federal institution that a majority of Americans trust “a great deal.” But it’s been slipping since the last Trump administration and may fall under 50%. Yet the military requires firm trust to fund and fill critical needs.

That’s important because not everyone wants to serve in the military. Many would prefer not to think about the expected self-sacrifice, or the daily discomforts of military discipline. Moreover, not everyone is even able to serve in the military. Roughly three-quarters of young Americans can’t qualify.

What if someone who would have been the next Mike Mullen — Los Angeles native, Navy admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs — gets turned off by this rally and opts against the Naval Academy?

Then zoom out a little. What if much of California takes offense at this speech, not to mention at the soldiers and Marines so recently forced upon the local and state governments?

California hosts more active-duty troops than any other state — by a wide margin. It’s also the biggest donor state in the country, contributing $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives. The bases and other strategic locations up and down the Pacific Coast are beyond value. California is America’s strong right arm.

To sever California’s support for the military is simply unthinkable. It just can’t happen. We’ve got to fix this.

The first fix is simple. Hold troops to the accepted standards. Hegseth’s most recent book argued that the Defense Department has “an integrity and accountability problem.” Here’s the secretary’s chance to show America he stands for standards.

But we know mistakes happen, and this could become a powerful teachable moment: When the commander in chief orders troops to such an event, the only acceptable demeanor is the stone cold silence the generals and admirals of the Joint Chiefs display at the State of the Union, regardless of their politics and regardless of what the president is saying. Just a few years ago, two Marines in a similarly awful situation did just this right thing.

A further fix calls for more individuals to act: The roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals in America need to speak up. The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point. They know the old military saying: When you spot something substandard, and you fail to correct it, then you’ve just set a new standard.

The reason many of these retired senior officers often don’t speak out is their fear that defending neutrality risks having a political impact. Yet their continued silence carries a grave institutional effect — the slow-motion suicide of the profession that gave them their stars.

The president mentioned Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in his speech, and it’s too bad his speechwriter didn’t include a certain anecdote that would’ve fit the occasion. When the Civil War was over and terms were being agreed upon at Appomattox Court House, Lee noticed Col. Ely Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca man serving on Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s staff. Lee quipped, “I am glad to see one real American here.”

To which Parker replied, “We are all Americans.” Since that very moment, we’ve been one country and one Army, All Americans, indivisible and inseparable from society.

If only we can keep it.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

Source link

Vietnam between two strategic lines: Maintaining autonomy after Shangri-La Dialogue 2025

The 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, held in late May 2025 in Singapore, continued to clearly reflect the escalating strategic tensions between the United States and China in the Indo-Pacific region. Mutual criticism of freedom of navigation, militarization of the South China Sea, and the “rules-based” international order created an atmosphere of near-confrontation.

In that context, Vietnam—a country with a strategic position and close relations with both the United States and China—has once again attracted the attention of international analysts as a potential model of the “soft balancing” strategy. The question is, can Vietnam continue to maintain an independent and autonomous foreign policy while the great powers are increasingly exerting pressure?

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s speech at Shangri-La Dialogue 2025 reaffirmed America’s “unwavering” commitment to the security of its allies and partners in Asia, with a particular emphasis on “freedom of navigation in the South China Sea” and opposition to “unilateral actions that change the status quo.” Hegseth also announced the expansion of defense cooperation with many Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam.

In turn, China has criticized the United States for using the Shangri-La Dialogue to “create disputes, sow discord, provoke confrontation, and pursue selfish interests,” after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called China a threat in the Indo-Pacific region.

The war of words between the United States and China at Shangri-La 22 not only reflects the stance of the two powers but also an effort to shape the understanding of regional security, leaving countries like Vietnam facing many difficult choices.

Since 2023, when upgrading relations with the US to a “comprehensive strategic partnership,” Vietnam has entered a new phase in its policy of “multilateralization and diversification” of international relations. Bilateral trade turnover between Vietnam and the US has exceeded the 124 billion USD mark in 2024, while the US has also actively promoted cooperation in technology, cybersecurity, and maritime patrol support.

However, China remains Vietnam’s largest trading partner, with total two-way trade reaching a peak of over 230 billion USD in 2023. In addition, China is also an important source of input materials in many manufacturing and processing sectors.

Geostrategically, Vietnam is caught between two increasingly clear poles of influence. Leaning too heavily toward one side not only violates Hanoi’s principle of independent and autonomous diplomacy but also carries the risk of being drawn into conflicts that are not its own.

Vietnam’s “four no’s” defense policy—no participation in military alliances; no alliance with one country against another; no allowing foreign countries to set up military bases; No use of force or threat of use of force—continues to be affirmed after Shangri-La.

However, the challenge lies in practical implementation in the context of the US increasing its military presence in the East Sea, while China continues to consolidate artificial outposts and increase its maritime law enforcement forces.

Vietnam has been strengthening its defense capabilities, but it is not seeking a rigid alliance. Its defense procurement from multiple sources (Russia, Israel, South Korea, India, etc.) reflects its desire to maintain a flexible neutrality. In addition, Vietnam prioritizes bilateral and multilateral defense dialogues—including the ADMM+ and the ASEAN Maritime Security Capacity Building Initiative—to maintain regional stability.

For many experts, Vietnam is currently one of the few ASEAN countries with the capacity and courage to maintain a “dual pivot ”strategy”—maintaining warm relations with the US while maintaining stability with China. After the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, Vietnam will continue to play an active role in maintaining the stability of the regional power structure. By raising its voice, it will strengthen ASEAN’s central role, from the East Sea issue to building military-security dialogue mechanisms.

However, it cannot be denied that the increasing strategic pressure from both sides may hurt Vietnam’s independent policy space, especially when some countries in the region have begun to lean heavily towards one side; for example, the Philippines has increased military exercises and signed many extensive military agreements with the US.

Vietnam needs to continue moving in the direction of “not choosing sides, but choosing interests.” This means prioritizing substantive projects: energy transition, green technology, improving maritime security capacity, and responding to climate change.

Equally important is to promote bilateral and multilateral dialogue channels to resolve disagreements, especially the East Sea issue. In the context of the Code of Conduct (COC) still not reaching consensus after nearly two decades of negotiations, Vietnam’s proactive mediating role in ASEAN is extremely necessary.

Finally, Vietnam needs to invest more heavily in its domestic “strategic analytical capacity” and foreign policy advisory apparatus to provide flexible, realistic options and respond promptly to strategic movements in the region.

Thus, after the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, although no solution to regional security conflicts emerged, it was a clear reminder that US-China competition will continue, even more fiercely. In that environment, Vietnam has no other choice but to uphold the principles of independence, self-reliance, and cooperation while strengthening internal strength, expanding partnerships, and firmly maintaining a principled stance.

It is not an easy road. But as history has shown, Vietnam’s sobriety and steadfastness in the midst of major strategic currents is the foundation for long-term stability and development.

Source link

Winter fuel ‘u-turn’ and immigration ‘battle lines’

"Pensioners face tax hit for winter fuel U-turn" reads the headline on the front page of The Times.

The front page of the Times reports that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to set out a “winter fuel U-turn” in her spending review on 11 June. It says the payment will be restored and then clawed back “from millions of better-off pensioners through higher tax bills”. The paper also features an image of Queen Camilla shaking hands with “moss people” at Canary Wharf.

"Chaos fears over return of winter fuel payments" reads the headline on the front page of The Guardian.

There are fears of “chaos” over the return of winter fuel payments writes the Guardian. It reports the bereaved families of dead pensioners could be pursued by tax officials to recover the sums in a potential new Treasury scheme. The full details of the scheme have not yet been announced.

"Farage backs call for full U-turn to help OAPs" reads the headline of the Daily Express.

“Farage backs call for full U-turn to help OAPs” the Daily Express headlines on the winter fuel payments. Also from the Express, the Queen is pictured holding a bunch of flowers, with the caption “Queen of smiles for British flower week”.

"Pensioners on disability and housing benefit in line for winter fuel payments" reads the headline on the front page of The i Paper.

The i Paper is another to feature the winter fuel cuts reversal as its top story, reporting that 1.3m more people are likely to receive the payment this year. In an exclusive, it reports the chancellor has been “given £27,000 donation from lobbying firm linked to Thames Water bidder”. A Labour Party spokesperson said: “All necessary declarations have been made, in line with the rules.”

"Battle lines drawn over immigration" reads the headline on the front page of the Daily Mail.

The Mail’s headline reads “Battle lines drawn over immigration” and features a literal dotted line between blocks of texts laying out the opposing policies from Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch on cutting migration numbers.

"Reeves forced to drop net zero cuts" reads the headline on the front page of The Daily Telegraph.

The Telegraph reports that Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been “forced to drop net zero cuts” she had been considering for the spending review next week, with Energy Security Secretary Ed Miliband fending off cuts to the £13.2 billion warm homes plan.

"Fat Jab baby fears" reads the headline on the front page of The Sun.

The Sun also covers the story about weight-loss jabs, with warnings made to women about potential side effects of the medication.

"Trump's 'big beautiful bill' will swell US debt by $2.4tn, warns watchdog" reads the headline on the front page of the Financial Times.

The Financial Times reports that “Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ will swell US debt by $2.4tn (£1.1tn)”.

"Glee school meals" reads the headline on the front page of the Daily Mirror.

Under the headline “Glee School Meals”, the Daily Mirror reports 500,000 more school children will receive free school meals – an issue the paper has campaigned on

"Holy Grail hunt in UK" reads the headline on the front page of the Daily Star.

The Daily Star has an “ecclesiastical exclusive”: there’s a “Holy Grail hunt in UK” as it says the cup “supped by Jesus is secretly buried in St Albans, citing a documentary maker.

News Daily banner
News Daily banner

Source link

Garden owners rush to buy Flymo lawn mower that ‘leaves perfect lines’ slashed by 24% on Amazon

Amazon shoppers are snapping up the Flymo lawnmower as the summer months begin.

The popular garden gadget has been reduced from £134.99 to £102.75, saving 24% off.

Flymo lawnmower.

1

Amazon has slashed the cost of this powerful Flymo lawn mower by 24%

Flymo Speedi-Mo 360C Electric
Wheeled Lawn Mower, £102.75 (was £134.99)

Amazon is often one of the cheaper places to buy home and gardening tools, essentials and branded appliances, and this deal is a prime example.

With the start of June just a day away, summer is almost here and the Flymo lawnmower has taken the top spot on Amazon’s bestselling lawnmowers list.

The garden essential is being snapped up by those with a garden lawn, especially if overgrown grass is in need of some TLC after winter.

The online deal has come at a time when Brits are starting to prioritise keeping on top of their outdoor space as the weather starts warming up this weekend.

Although I haven’t personally tested it out, given the positive feedback and that the brand is sold at some of the top home and garden retailers, it should be a reliable choice.

The lawnmower has a powerful 1500W motor which is suitable for small, medium or large-sized gardens.

Designed to be easy to use, the controls are operated on the main handle, and include a choice of five grass cutting heights between 20-60mm, so you can choose which length to opt for and ensure an even trim.

The easy set-up is mentioned often by customers, who praise how quick it is to assemble, so it’s ideal if you’re looking to put your new lawnmower to use as soon as possible.

Emptying out the grass should be straightforward too, as you simply need to 

If you’re looking for a lightweight lawnmower, this could suit you, and it’s also easy to manoeuvre using the handy foldable handle.

The lawnmower has amassed over 8,000 reviews, earning it a 4.6 star rating on Amazon, with plenty of shoppers buying it in the past month.

One shopper was full of praise for their Amazon purchase, saying: ‘’Easily put together and has the ability to cut at different lengths. Great machine and lightweight. Managed to get the perfect lines when mowing the lawn!’

Another shopper continued the positive feedback, adding: ‘’So to save money paying a gardener I bought this mower…. cheap as chips.

“Always been put off before as my old mower was so heavy. This one is a dream and I am quids in already doing it myself!

“Can’t fault it and my lawn looks great already because I do it more often and it is so easy to do.’’

While a third described it as ‘’amazing’’, adding that it was ‘’easy to put together’’, ‘’sturdy’’ and ‘’has a large collection grass box which is easy to empty’’.

Flymo Speedi-Mo 360C Electric Wheeled
Lawn Mower, £102.75 (was £134.99)

Argos also has an affordable £60 lawnmower that’s ideal for smaller gardens.

Or, if you’re looking to revamp your outdoor space in other ways, Amazon’s popular paint sprayer is great for freshening up garden fences and decking.

Still shopping around? Head to our pick of the best lawnmowers, all tried and tested by our team.

Source link

‘When It All Burns’ review: Firefighting lessons from the front lines

Book Review

When It All Burns: Fighting Fire in a Transformed World

By Jordan Thomas
Riverhead Books: 368 pages, $30
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.

Jordan Thomas didn’t want to just research and write about fire, he wanted to see it up close, and he has turned that experience into the exceptional new book, “When It All Burns.” A specialist in the cultural forces that shape fire, Thomas joined the Los Padres Hotshots, a crew that might be viewed as the Navy SEALs of firefighting. He spent 2021 battling wildfires extreme and treacherous even by the standards of these globally warmed times.

A first-person account would be compelling enough, especially given Thomas’ gift for terse, layered expository writing. But Thomas has more on his mind here. He alternates sequences of harrowing action and macho team-building with deep dives into the ecology, science, economics and, most important, Indigenous cultural practices related to fire. In Thomas’ hands these subjects are interconnected, and his writing brings new heat to an ubiquitous subject.

"When It All Burns: Fighting Fire in a Transformed World" by Jordan Thomas

If you live anywhere near Los Angeles, you may very well prefer not to read “When It All Burns.” But you should. Just this last January, a series of wildfires ravaged the region, fed by gusting Santa Ana winds, drought conditions and low humidity. Projected damage from the fires had ballooned to more than $250 billion in damages in January, The Times reported. At least 30 people were killed in the fires, with economic ramifications expected to stretch into the unforeseeable future. “When It All Burns” was written well before any of this happened, and it sometimes carries the force of prophecy. The fire next time has already burned, though there will surely be more.

Thomas sets the table early on: “In the past two decades, wildfires have been doing things not even computer models can predict, environmental events that have scientists racking their brains for appropriately Dystopian technology: firenados, gigafires, megafires. Scientists recently invented the term ‘megafire’ to describe wildfires that behave in ways that would have been impossible just a generation ago, burning through winter, exploding in the night, and devastating landscapes historically impervious to incendiary destruction.”

In other words, it’s only going to get worse. As a member of the Hotshots crew, Thomas hacked away at undergrowth with a chainsaw as the firefighters made their advance, and he found himself fascinated by the subculture of people, mostly men, assigned to combat these otherworldly infernos. But the education and knowledge he carries also makes him deeply ambivalent about the very nature of fire suppression.

Author Jordan Thomas.

Author Jordan Thomas.

(Sari Blum)

For centuries, Indigenous peoples the world over have used controlled fires, or “cultural burning,” for any number of purposes, from agriculture to reducing the risk of uncontrolled fires. But such practices didn’t jibe with increasingly modern economies, and colonialists, especially in North America, saw burning as both barbaric and a threat to industrialized capitalism. Fire surpression was more than a byproduct of Native American genocide, it was part of the master plan: “In California, fire had always connected people to their food, and Americans set about its suppression with unprecedented brutality.” Researchers who tried to bring this history to light often had their work suppressed like one more controlled fire. And as the practice declined, wildfires entered the breach.

As you might expect, life as a Hotshot is fraught with medical risk: Hotshots tend to work sick and injured, loathe to pass up the overtime and hazard pay on which they depend. As Thomas writes, “The precarious lives of Hotshots are one flashpoint in an expanding field of self-reinforcing social and environmental crises. Scientists call this a sacrifice zone — a place where low-income people shoulder the burden of industrial misconduct.”

Every time “When It All Burns” threatens to get dry, like a combustible piece of brush, Thomas brings it back to his own firefighting travails, and the cast of Hotshot characters who showed him the ropes, berated him and bailed him out.

The two Los Padres leaders are Edgar, a stern drill sergeant-type who rides everyone with equal venom, and Aoki, just as demanding but with more of a shaman-warrior demeanor. Aoki conducts Thomas’ job interview as the two men hike a steep hill; Thomas eventually has to decide between asking questions, which takes up oxygen, or concentrating on the task at hand.

“At a certain level of physical suffering, the pain becomes almost comedic,” he notes, as he assesses his condition before hiking a mountain to carry an injured firefighter back downhill. “My feet were torn and oozing within my elk leather boots, and every inch of my skin was a rash of poison oak. Hours before I had been incapacitated by muscle cramps.” And moments later: “The only antidote to the discomfort was to return to the level of exhaustion where the body becomes numb.”

“When It All Burns” is one of those books that immerses the reader in the nuances of a world most of us know only through the lens of tragedy and destruction. Thomas’ visceral, crystalline prose only adds fuel to the fire.

Vognar is a freelance culture writer.

Source link

‘Red lines’ stalk fifth round of Iran-US nuclear talks | Politics News

Washington and Tehran have taken a tough public stance before talks, with enrichment a key point of contention.

Iran and the United States are set to hold a fifth round of talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme amid uncompromising rhetoric on both sides.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are due to meet in Rome on Friday.

The ongoing talks, mediated by Oman, seek a new deal in which Iran would be prevented from producing nuclear weapons while having international sanctions eased. However, little progress has been made so far, and both Washington and Tehran have taken a tough stance in public in recent days, particularly regarding Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

Witkoff has said Iran cannot be allowed to carry out any enrichment.

Tehran, which has raised its enrichment to about 60 percent, well above civilian needs but below the 90 percent needed for weaponisation, has rejected that “red line”.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the demand “excessive and outrageous,” warning that the ongoing talks are unlikely to yield results.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington is working to reach an agreement that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy program but not enrich uranium, while admitting that achieving such a deal “will not be easy”.

On Thursday, the State Department announced new sanctions on Iran’s construction sector.

“Figuring out the path to a deal is not rocket science,” Araghchi said on social media on Friday morning. “Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide…”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran took aim at the new sanctions, calling the move “vicious, illegal, and inhumane”.

High stakes

The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are strictly civilian, but seeks to ease international sanctions that hamper its economy.

During his first term, in 2018, Trump nixed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 agreement that saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for eased sanctions.

After his return to the White House for a second term in January, Trump renewed his “maximum pressure” programme against Iran, piling further economic pressure, for example, by choking the country’s oil exports, particularly to China.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected US demands to halt enrichment and suggested that the ongoing talks are unlikely to produce results (File: Reuters)

Iran responded defiantly, promising to defend itself against any attack and escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact’s limits.

Tensions began to ease in April as the two countries launched the talks mediated by Oman, but Tehran’s enrichment programme has become a major point of contention.

Should that see the talks fail, the cost could be high. Trump has repeatedly threatened military action if no deal is reached.

Israel, which opposes the US talks with its regional foe, has warned that it would never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Following reports that Israel may be planning to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Araghchi warned on Thursday that Washington will bear legal responsibility if Iran is attacked.

Source link

Rail lines at stop as train hits tractor

Kate Justice

BBC Hereford & Worcester

Tanya Gupta

BBC News, West Midlands

BBC A close up of a train stationary in a station with the words Transport for Wales written on the side of a grey and red train.BBC

Transport for Wales said 56 people were on board

A train has hit a tractor and trailer on a level crossing in Herefordshire, bringing rail services to a halt.

The train has not been derailed, but there were 56 passengers on board the Manchester-to-Cardiff train and a number of them are understood to have suffered minor injuries.

British Transport Police (BTP) said six people were being assessed by medics, but none of them are thought to be serious, including those to either driver.

Ambulance crews were called to an incident on the track at Nordan Farm, Leominster, just after 10:45 BST.

The air ambulance was deployed, alongside land ambulances and paramedics.

Transport for Wales (TfW) said services had been stopped after the 08:30 from Manchester Piccadilly struck the vehicle on a crossing between Ludlow and Leominster.

National Rail said all lines were blocked between Hereford and Craven Arms, and services between those stations would be cancelled or changed, with disruption expected until the end of the day.

A TfW spokeswoman urged people to check before travelling and said tickets would be accepted by other operators.

The level crossing takes a farm track across the railway and is only used by agricultural vehicles.

The mile-long approach is difficult to access for standard cars and the route is currently blocked by emergency vehicles.

There are dozens of them, belonging to police, ambulance, Network Rail and fire crews.

A BTP spokesperson said inquiries were ongoing to better understand the circumstances leading up to the crash.

Source link

Coronation Street lines up life-changing twist for Kit as Mick feud intensifies

Coronation Street’s Kit Green makes a shocking discovery next week on the ITV soap that paves the way for deadly scenes on the ITV soap involving villain Mick Michaelis

There’s a jaw-dropping moment for one Coronation Street character next week and it could change everything.

Kit Green will feature in a life-changing twist, with a discovery leading to some deadly scenes on the ITV soap. One moment in upcoming episodes, following a flashback special, will see Kit uncover something truly shocking.

As he considers what he’s discovered he’s warned off, but it seems he might let slip something leading to an explosive set of episodes. A new spoiler video reveals the moment when Kit comes face-to-face with a new character, only for him to realise he shares a link with them.

Something the character says rings alarm bells for Kit who literally stops in his tracks, and the penny seems to drop. With that he has one question, before he’s told something that possibly backs up what he thinks he’s uncovered.

In the clip Kit pins Brody Michaelis up against a wall after he steals from the corner shop, where Kit’s mother Bernie Winter works. Given Kit asks for Brody’s name in the scene, it hints Kit is unaware he is the son of Lou and Mick Michaelis – while he did see him with the pair last week.

READ MORE: Coronation Street Craig Tinker’s death ‘revealed’ in first look at ‘horrific’ final scenes

Coronation Street's Kit Green makes a shocking discovery next week
Coronation Street’s Kit Green makes a shocking discovery next week(Image: ITV)

All has just been revealed about Mick and Lou’s past with Kit, with the trio being friends when they were teens. It all fell apart though, as revealed in Friday’s flashback episode, when Mick was sent to prison for a crime Kit was involved in.

Mick took the fall and Kit soon fled, never seeing Mick or Lou again until now. Kit also realised Lou and Mick had a son, and he appeared to clock on that Lou was pregnant back when they knew each other, or that she had a baby not long after they went their separate ways.

With that it’s become apparent that something happened between Kit and Lou in the past, and Mick has no idea. So Kit’s run-in with Brody next week opens up a can of worms when he finds out Brody’s birthday.

Taking down some personal details, Brody reveals his name and that he was born in January 2009. As soon as he hears this Kit stops writing and looks very shocked, realising this was around the time he last saw Lou and Mick was sent away.

Kit Green will feature in a life-changing twist, with a discovery leading to some deadly scenes
Kit Green will feature in a life-changing twist, with a discovery leading to some deadly scenes(Image: ITV)

Questioning whether he could be the real father of Brody he confronts Brody’s mother Lou. He says: “Is he mine? Lou, could Brody be mine?”

Lou doesn’t even deny it and absolutely hints Kit is correct. Telling him “not to rock the boat”, she responds: “Mick loves him. He’s his dad and has been for 16 years. Please don’t do this.”

But spoilers for next week reveal that Kit will make Mick reconsider Lou’s loyalty with a comment. So does Kit tell Mick that he might be Brody’s dad? After all Mick does find out the truth, as actor Joe Layton teased the villain would be “blindsided” to find out that something happened between them, and that he might not be Brody’s biological father.

Coronation Street airs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .



Source link