rules

Tokyo, Japan – Nearly eight years after moving to Japan for work, Abdul feels more accustomed to life in the East Asian country than in his native Bangladesh.

But as the Japanese government moves to tighten the rules for permanent residency and public sentiment towards immigrants sours, Abdul is reconsidering his future.

“I don’t know what the Japanese government will do in the future, if they’ll make things stricter again,” Abdul, a tech engineer who lives in northern Tokyo with his Bangladeshi wife, told Al Jazeera.

Abdul, who is preparing to apply for both permanent residency and citizenship, is aware of the possibility that he may soon have to leave.

“I have to be prepared if both of my applications are rejected,” said Abdul, who asked not to be identified by his real name.

“Right now, I am starting to look for opportunities outside of Japan.”

Under rules set to come into effect in phases from October 1, applicants for permanent residency will need to show that their annual household income exceeds the Japanese average – a stipulation that will be applied retroactively for applications submitted since April – and demonstrate Japanese-language proficiency.

Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.

In an announcement detailing the changes, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency stressed the need for foreigners to “live independently” and have “a stable life without the risk of becoming a burden”.

Sarah Nelkin, an American who has lived in Japan for the last 14 years, is among the many long-term residents who fear they will not qualify under the new rules.

A lover of Japanese animation and video games, Nelkin first moved to Japan as a university student and has since built a career in the country’s bustling entertainment industry.

Like Abdul, Nelkin, who submitted an application for permanent residency shortly before the announcement of the changes, is anxious about what the future holds.

If her application is rejected, she plans to apply to become a Japanese citizen – which would mean giving up her US citizenship, as Japan does not recognise dual nationality.

“I’ve lived my entire adult life in Japan … I would rather not give up my American passport. My mother lives in the US, and I want to retain my citizenship for a lot of reasons, like visiting family,” Nelkin told Al Jazeera.

“But at this point, I might have to give up my American nationality.”

Risa Hagiwara, a professor of economics at Meikai University in Urayasu, Japan, said the changes reflect a shift towards a “selective and conditional” immigration policy that is in tension with Japan’s need for labour amid a shrinking population.

“Japan needs foreign workers because of labour shortages. But if the conditions for long-term settlement become substantially more difficult, this could potentially reduce Japan’s attractiveness to foreign workers who are considering Japan as a place to build their long-term lives,” Hagiwara told Al Jazeera.

Hot-button issue

Immigration has become an increasingly hot-button topic in historically homogenous Japan.

Japan’s foreign resident population remains small compared with developed peers such as the United Kingdom and France, where 10 to 15 percent of residents were born overseas.

But it has been growing fast, hitting a record 4.12 million people, or about 3 percent of the total population, as of the end of 2025, according to government data.

By some estimates, Japan’s foreign-born population could reach the OECD average of 10 percent by 2070.

Meanwhile, the number of Japanese nationals fell by more than 900,000 between January 2025 and 2026 amid the country’s rock-bottom birthrate, according to government figures.

Hagiwara said that Japan is at a crossroads as foreign-born residents play an increasingly important role in Japanese society.

“If Japan wants to rely on foreign workers to address labour shortages, it also needs to consider what happens after they come to Japan,” Hagiwara said.

“The question is increasingly not only ‘how many foreign workers does Japan need?’, but also ‘what kind of society does Japan want to build with the people who come here?’” she said.

Japan’s mooted immigration shake-up comes amid a broader rightward shift in the country’s politics.

While campaigning for the leadership of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party last year, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said the country should “reconsider, at least for now, policies that allow in people with completely different cultures and backgrounds”.

Takaichi’s subsequent coalition agreement with the right-wing Japan Innovation Party (JIP) pledged a firm stance against foreigners who break the rules, as well as steps to address “potential social friction” from a growing foreign population.

At the same time, the far-right, anti-immigration Sanseito party has gained ground with its “Japan First” messaging, winning a record 15 seats at the most recent lower-house election to become the third-largest opposition party.

Public opinion has also moved against immigrants.

In a recent survey by the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tokyo, 56.3 percent of Japanese people said they opposed accepting more foreigners, up from 35.6 percent in 2024.

Nelkin and Abdul have both felt the change in sentiment.

“Before 2024, I never felt any discrimination against foreigners, but recently there has been a shift … especially online,” Abdul said.

Nelkin said peers have become outspoken in their dislike of foreigners.

“Even seemingly decent people are just saying racist stuff,” she said.

“I’ve worked for this country and specifically avoided breaking any rules, and they’re saying you are never enough,” she added. “That’s really hard.”

The California Supreme Court excoriated Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots earlier this year, ordering the former gubernatorial candidate to immediately hand over all remaining material in a pair of scathing decisions on Thursday.

“We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “While allegations of election improprieties are a very serious matter, our Elections Code contains numerous established mechanisms for investigating and proving misconduct that do not compromise the integrity of voted ballots — contrary to the means employed here.”

The ruling comes less than two weeks before Californians will start casting ballots in the race for governor and a handful of hotly contested congressional midterms — nationally watched elections that would be vulnerable to similar interference unless the court gave clear orders, advocates warned at oral arguments last month.

“It’s bound to be repeated again,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which led the first of two election interference suits against Bianco, a popular MAGA personality and former Republican candidate for governor.

Bianco has long flirted with President Trump’s election fraud conspiracy movement. Though the ballot seizures in February were widely seen as a campaign stunt, the legal theory behind them — that local lawmen can commandeer voter materials from elections officials, and that sheriffs are unanswerable to officials who outrank them, including attorneys general — belongs to a larger “constitutional sheriffs” ideology.

California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared by turns perplexed by and incredulous of those theories during oral arguments last month.

“You are walking into a very dense thicket of very specific laws that govern elections in particular and I think it’s a very established cannon of interpretation that the specific trumps the general,” Justice Goodwin H. Liu said.

The ballot battle emerged from a Riverside County pilot program meant to boost voter confidence, a handwritten tally that ultimately fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, sparking claims of fraud.

Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco met with the county board of supervisors and the citizens’ group behind the claim and carefully explained how the discrepancy emerged. Yet, Bianco pursued warrants to seize more than 650,000 ballots, alleging they were evidence in an investigation of wide-ranging election fraud.

When he learned of the warrants, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta ordered Bianco to stand down. Instead, the sheriff accelerated his plans, dispatching armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit to sweep up the votes.

Later, Bianco directed his underlings to begin counting those ballots by hand — a potential felony under state law, which forbids anyone other than an election official from so much as touching a ballot container.

When Bonta again ordered him to stop, Bianco argued the attorney general had no authority to command him, later claiming in court that the law conferred only an “advise and consent” role.

In fact, California courts have spent more than a century delineating power between the state’s attorney general and local sheriffs and prosecutors. Voters took the matter a step further in 1934, endorsing a ballot initiative that clearly named the attorney general as California’s top law enforcement official, and put the state’s other lawmen beneath him.

In a footnote, justices also took a swipe at Bianco’s initial effort to have the case tossed for lack of standing — a move apparently undertaken on the legal advice of an elaborate artificial intelligence hallucination.

“In his preliminary briefing, Bianco challenged petitioners’ standing based on misquoted passages from, and an incorrect recitation of our holding in, Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors,” Guerrero wrote. “We disapprove of the improper use of artificial intelligence tools, which apparently contributed to the significant error that occurred here and remind counsel of attorneys’ professional duties of competence and candor to the court.”

The Southern Section has no authority to tell a school to get rid of a coach. It has no control over personnel matters. But there’s precedent that when a coach knowingly plays an ineligible player, it expects a school district to take appropriate action.

In the case with Inglewood football coach Mil’von James, he has a history of using ineligible players. James came to Inglewood, which is 4-1 this season, after being fired at Hawkins in 2016 following the discovery of ineligible players, resulting in Hawkins forfeiting all of its games to finish 0-13. Since then, the City Section established a rule that teams must exchange rosters before games to verify that players are eligible, known as the “Hawkins rule.”

Inglewood Unified School District administrator James Morris told the Daily Breeze that James is scheduled to return to coach on Friday after missing last week’s game against Long Beach Poly at SoFi. That means he received a two-game suspension for using two ineligible players in a game last month, since it is believed he also didn’t coach a game against Elk Grove Franklin.

James appears to have knowingly played two players listed on the Southern Section transfer portal that had not been cleared when Inglewood played in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 28. Video obtained by The Times shows the players in the game.

Add to that, both players’ names and numbers were missing from Inglewood’s MaxPreps’ roster, something that was also a tactic when James coached at Hawkins and resulted in the new City Section rule to exchange roster before games.

Shame on the Inglewood Unified School District for failing to hold its coach accountable for a serious violation of CIF rules.

If the two-game suspension stands, shame on the Southern Section, too. The message being sent to other coaches and other schools is that it’s OK to cheat as long as you don’t get caught, and if you get caught and only get suspended for two games, it’s worth it.

The Southern Section, under commissioner Mike West, went out of its way to try to catch those breaking transfer rules last year. It was a sign maybe things were changing and people were paying attention to the games being played with more than 17,000 transfers in California. But if the Southern Section settles for a two-game suspension for James, it will lose credibility among coaches and programs trying to follow CIF rules.

Southern Section spokesman Thom Simmons has declined comment and declined to make West available.

As always, they’re afraid of legal action. And it must be pointed out again the Southern Section has no authority to discipline coaches. But at some point, to save credibility, they will need to address this breaking of rules that goes to the core of what the CIF is supposed to guard against.

The Southern Section Council has a meeting on Thursday. If any of the representatives have concerns, maybe then they’ll get to ask West how this could be acceptable.

In 2014 Long Beach Unified suspended Long Beach Poly basketball coach Sharrief Metoyer for one year for after he was caught using an ineligible player during a state basketball playoff game. He did it on purpose being frustrated at the CIF transfer policies. The CIF could not tell administrators what to do. But if they did nothing or put in only a two-game suspension, there’s no doubt that the Southern Section leadership had the authority to take action.

According to Southern Section’s Blue Book rule 500.5, “Any school knowingly or unknowingly violating the rule may be suspended from membership in the CIF Southern Section.”

Hopefully the Southern Section is keeping its options open, but it’s time for West, the commissioner since 2023, to get his credibility back. If not, it’s up to the Southern Section Executive Committee to launch its own investigation of what the section is supposed to do when schools and districts don’t take their rules seriously.

A day after unveiling Pontes, its system for settling tokenised assets in central bank money, the ECB has set out how it wants Europe’s crypto rulebook rewritten.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The response, published on Tuesday by the European System of Central Banks, which groups the ECB with the EU’s national central banks, argues for tougher rules on stablecoins, staking and crypto firms.

It feeds into the European Commission’s review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, known as MiCA, the EU’s rulebook for cryptocurrencies and the firms that trade them.

MiCA has applied since December 2024, and the last transitional deadline for existing operators expired on 1 July, including Binance, the world’s largest exchange, to stop serving European customers.

The Commission’s consultation will close on 30 September, a month later than planned.

The central banks’ recommendations are not binding, and the Commission will weigh them alongside other responses before deciding whether to reopen the law.

EU diplomats have told Euronews they expect a revision in 2027, which would need the approval of the European Parliament and member states.

No interest and no loopholes

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to hold a steady value, usually by tracking the US dollar.

MiCA already bars both issuers and crypto exchanges from paying interest on them, and the central banks want it kept that way.

“The payment of stablecoin remuneration should continue to be prohibited,” the ECB response says.

Their targets are the workarounds. Some exchanges, the response notes, offer crypto lending, borrowing and staking, “thereby replicating the economic effect of interest payments through ancillary or unregulated services.”

The central banks want the ban extended to those activities and to indirect rewards, such as certain loyalty-programme benefits, calling it “a clear legislative priority”.

Washington has gone the other way.

The 2025 GENIUS Act banned US stablecoin issuers from paying interest but left exchanges free to offer rewards, and whether to close that gap became one of the most contested fights over the CLARITY Act, the landmark crypto bill that fell ten votes short in the US Senate on 15 September.

A brake on US dollar stablecoins

The central banks want stronger tools against tokens pegged to foreign currencies.

It would be useful, they say, if authorities could impose “a prohibition to issue new tokens, as well as an obligation to redeem existing tokens” on issuers where central banks judge that the tokens pose a threat, including to financial stability.

More broadly, they see limited benefit in stablecoins for everyday payments at home, given instant bank transfers and the planned digital euro. They warn that MiCA provides no legal basis for issuing the same stablecoin both inside and outside the EU.

In a bank run, European reserves could end up paying holders elsewhere, while “EU authorities cannot determine with certainty how many tokens are held within the Union.”

Eurozone central banks also do not currently let stablecoin issuers hold customer funds with them.

A token fully backed by central bank money, the response warns, “would effectively result in a ‘synthetic’ central bank digital currency” that is essentially a private imitation of the digital euro and could, in theory, drain deposits from commercial banks, especially under stress.

Staking and decentralised finance

On staking, where users lock up crypto in exchange for rewards, the response is blunt: “Staking, lending and borrowing of crypto-assets should be regulated at Union level.”

Where a firm takes customers’ crypto and promises to return it, potentially with a premium, the central banks argue that the arrangement can be “comparable to the taking of repayable funds”, in the language of banking.

The same applies to decentralised finance, or DeFi, where lending and trading run on automated software rather than through a company.

MiCA exempts fully decentralised services but never defines the term, and the central banks cite studies showing that full decentralisation is rarely, if ever, achieved, leaving it unclear who is in control.

Who licenses crypto exchanges?

The central banks also back a Commission proposal to move licensing and supervision of crypto firms from national regulators to ESMA, the EU’s markets watchdog.

Currently, one national licence covers the whole bloc, which was the route Binance originally pursued in Greece.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing people familiar with the discussions, that ECB President Christine Lagarde urged Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis not to approve Binance’s application because of the exchange’s past compliance problems and fears that its scale could deepen the use of US dollar stablecoins in Europe.

A senior Greek regulator, according to the newspaper, told the exchange that Lagarde wanted the decision delayed until ESMA took over, the same shift the central banks endorse in Tuesday’s response. Binance withdrew the application on 24 June.

Neither the ECB nor the Greek regulator has confirmed the account. The ECB, which has no formal role in licensing crypto firms, declined to comment, while Binance said it would “not comment on speculation”.

A WOMAN from the UK was stopped at the border abroad after she was told she had overstayed in Europe – despite her not.

Paula Pugh was going on holiday to Italy but was taken back to the UK after systems showed she had overstayed her limit of 90 days in a 180-day period in the Schengen Area.

EES has been causing chaos for lots of Brits since it was first introduced earlier this year including airport delays and missed flights,

But now, it is also causing problems for passengers by incorrectly claiming they are staying too long in Europe.

Talking to The Telegraph, Paula Pugh, 60, explained how she was escorted out of Italy and taken back to the UK because of the error.

Travelling with her husband and cousin for a five-day trip to southern Italy, Paula was flagged at border control shortly after landing.

ROME FREE

Ten cheap autumn city breaks from £59pp with £1.40 pints, 28C & thermal spas

DIVE IN

Rainproof UK autumn holiday parks from £8pp a night – Center Parcs dupes and more

She was accused of overstaying her 90 limit in the Schengen Area despite taking just three short visits to Spain and one to France – which totted up to 22 days.

Talking to the publication Paula explained she “wasn’t allowed to go anywhere without a police presence.”

Paula was put on a flight home on the same day from another airport with Ryanair along with her family.

Her passport was given to the captain for the duration of their flight.

She added: “My husband then asked the cabin crew where I would get my passport, and we had to walk to the front of the plane.

“Somebody came onto the plane, took me off the plane, had a look, gave me my passport, and said ‘There you go.’ As though it was all over and all forgotten.

“I’m still very upset when I think about it.”

The cancelled trip and return flights home cost the family around £2,000.

Now, Paula is trying to get her record corrected.

Previously, Brits were manually stamped in and out of a country at border control. EES has replaced that with the taking of biometrics and fingerprints.

However, in some cases where EES has been turned off at airports due to faults, or delays, the exit for Brits has not been recorded and the days spent in the Schengen Area continues without them knowing.

A UK Government spokesman told The Telegraph: “While EES is an EU scheme, we recognise this is a significant change for British travellers, and advise that they read the latest Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Travel Advice about the scheme before travelling.“

In August, the UK Foreign Office altered its advice to Brits asking them to carry evidence of when they last left the EU, to avoid being wrongly refused entry.

Brits travelling from the UK to Europe can spend 90 days out of every 180 in the EU – staying over this limit will mean both refusal of entry and a fine.

In some cases a fine can be as much as £8,550.

Advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) reads: “If you believe you have been incorrectly entered into EES or your record of time spent in the Schengen area is incorrect, approach border officials when you next cross the Schengen border and request a correction.

“If you are exempt, carry documentation confirming your status. If you believe your time spent in the Schengen area has been recorded incorrectly, raise this with border officials and be prepared to provide supporting evidence if requested.”

If you want to check the days left on your record before travelling, the The European Commission has an EES online tool.

South Korea will continue efforts to facilitate talks between Washington and Pyongyang.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said on Friday that United States President Donald Trump wants dialogue with Pyongyang and confirmed Seoul will not be deploying troops to intervene militarily in the Iran war.

“Trump clearly ⁠wants dialogue ⁠with North ⁠Korea,” Lee said on Friday.

He added that while such talks are uncertain, they are not impossible.

South Korea was continuing “preliminary coordination efforts” to facilitate dialogue between North Korea and the US.

“The resumption of North Korea-US dialogue would be far easier than resuming inter-Korean dialogue,” he said, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap.

Trump, seeking to revive the bond he claims to have forged with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term, said he plans to meet Kim later this year.

The US president said it was important to “get along” with Kim, adding that Pyongyang now had 57 “very powerful” nuclear weapons.

Seoul has assessed that Pyongyang has about 80-120 nuclear warheads.

North Korea, which has secured critical backing from Russia in recent years, did not clearly respond to Trump.

Inter-Korean relations reached a high in 2018 but deteriorated after talks between Kim and Trump collapsed in February 2019.

On Thursday, a court in Seoul ordered North Korea to pay roughly $32.5m for blowing up the Inter-Korean Liaison Office building in 2020. The office was intended to improve relations on the peninsula but was destroyed amid rising tensions between the neighbours.

South Korea is working to strengthen relations with other regional partners. The first-ever presidential summit between Seoul and five Central Asian states was held on Wednesday, aiming to establish deeper economic engagement with the Russian-allied countries.

South Korea will not dispatch troops

Despite growing pressure from the US, Lee reiterated three times that South Korea will not deploy troops to the Strait of Hormuz.

“Let it be clear. There will be no dispatch of troops that will lead to involvement in a conflict. There will be no engagement or involvement in war,” Lee said.

The South Korean government found itself at odds with large parts of Korean society as protests broke out in recent weeks opposing a potential deployment of South Korean military assets to the Strait of Hormuz.

Lee added that South Korea will “carry out the minimum necessary activities” to protect its own merchant ships and oil shipping routes.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has updated its travel guidance for British nationals travelling to Thailand, with tighter visa-free stay restrictions for UK travellers coming into force on 15 September 2026, alongside revised weather warnings

The Foreign Office has warned Brits to check their paperwork is in order as a country changes its entry rules.

As of today, Thailand’s entry system has changed. After two years running a generous scheme under which citizens of 93 countries and territories could enter visa-free for stays of up to 60 days, a harsher system has taken over. Effective this morning, the length of stay has been cut in half from 60 days to 30 days for many nationalities.

For US, UK, Australian and Canadian citizens, the principle remains straightforward: no visa is required for a tourist stay of up to 30 days in Thailand. However, the visa-free period has been halved from 60 to 30. If you want to stay in the country for longer than that, you’ll have to apply for an extension of up to 30 additional days. The Thai government has indicated that this should be granted.

Another major change is that the visa-free scheme now applies only to tourists. Those entering the country for work or other purposes now use the visa category corresponding to their activity.

The reform also reintroduces a restriction on land-border entries, with those using the 30-day visa exemption allowed only two land-border crossings per calendar year. Nationals of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are not subject to this limit.

Ahead of the changes coming into effect today, the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) issued updated advice to Brits, a record-breaking million of whom visited Thailand last year. The government warned of the consequences of overstaying your visa or visa-free period.

“If you overstay the period of your visa, you will get a fine of 500 Thai baht a day up to a maximum of 20,000 baht. You risk being:

• held in detention
• deported at your own expense
• banned from re-entering Thailand for up to 10 years

“Conditions in detention centres can be harsh.”

Thailand relaxed its visa rules in 2024, expanding the number of countries that qualified for visa-exemption, while extending the maximum length of stay to 60, in a bid to boost its tourism sector post-Covid. Tourism accounts for as much of 20% of the country’s GDP.

However, the rise in visitor numbers has caused tensions in the country. Back in May government spokesperson Rachada Dhanadirek told reporters that while tourism provided “benefits, such as boosting the economy”, the former visa scheme had allowed people to “exploit” the system. Foreigners overstaying and illegally operating businesses in tourism hotspots, without the proper permits, is a particular concern in parts of the country.

The full FCDO advice reads: “From 15 September 2026, if you enter Thailand under the visa exemption scheme, you can stay for up to 30 days for tourism. If you entered Thailand before 15 September 2026, you will usually be allowed to stay for the period granted when you arrived. If you want to stay longer, you must get the appropriate visa before you travel or, if eligible, apply for an extension through the Thai immigration authorities.

“You may be asked to show that you meet the entry requirements. This could include proof that you have enough money for your stay (at least 10,000 Thai baht per person or 20,000 Thai baht per family) and evidence of onward or return travel. British nationals have been refused entry for failing to provide this evidence.

“If you overstay your permission to stay in Thailand, you could be fined, detained, deported or banned from re-entering the country. Make sure you understand the conditions of your stay and get any visa extension you need before your permission expires.”

Alongside the entry guidance, the Foreign Office has revised its advice on Thailand’s rainy season and the dangers posed by heavy downpours.

The rainy season generally runs from May to October across most of the country, and from November to March in Koh Samui and south-east Thailand. However, the updated guidance warns that “weather patterns have become increasingly unpredictable and periods of intense rainfall can occur across Thailand.”

It continues: “Heavy rainfall can cause flash flooding, landslides and disruption to transport, particularly in northern, north-eastern and mountainous areas. Conditions can change rapidly and may result in road closures and local travel disruption. Lakes, caves and waterfalls are particularly at risk of dangerous flash flooding.”

Holidaymakers should follow instructions from local authorities and keep a close eye on weather warnings from the Thai Meteorological Department.

POWER banks are an essential when it comes to travel – but there are strict rules in place for them.

Most know the main ones – like it cannot be used inflight – but here’s one some of you might not know about which could see it taken off you before boarding.

Most airlines allow power banks up to 100Wh without special approval onboard.

But anything over that, without the say-so from the airline, and they could be confiscated for being too big and some countries being particularly strict.

The Wh – which translates to watt-hours – should be printed on the label of your power bank and if travelling on most planes it needs to be under 100Wh or less.

In places like China and Japan, some passengers have had their large power banks taken off them.

ALL IN

UK holiday parks where you can go ALL INCLUSIVE from £25pp with shows & waterparks

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

Someone on Reddit explained: “Accidentally brought a power bank that was larger than 100 watt-hour on my international trip.

“It passed US TSA as under 100, clocked 106 and 136 watt-hour in two airports in China and refused on board as over 180Wh at Guangzhou International Airport.”

Rules are strict in Japan too with Japan Airlines currently allowing two power banks with 160Wh or less in hand luggage – but that is going down to 100Wh from January 2027.

A lot have warned that the label with the Wh must be clear or risk it being taken off you as well.

Someone else said: “It is the label that matters and if you have old ones that is too faint, it is almost foregone conclusion that it will be taken.

“Friends encountered in Korea and China recently where their older power banks were taken as it wasn’t clear enough.”

For those travelling to China, there is another requirement and this is that all power banks must be marked clearly with the mark ‘CCC’.

The 3C mark is a China Compulsory Certification and the power banks must also be 100Wh or under for all flights.

Any power banks over 160Wh require airline approval – and anything over that is banned.

Most airlines will also only allow one power bank onboard – but check prior to flying as some do allow two.

Power banks must be stored in hand luggage during a flight but not used while in the air as the lithium battery inside is a fire risk – and storing them in the wrong way can cause huge disruption.

In May of this year, an easyJet flight travelling from Egypt to the UK was forced to divert to Rome after a passenger revealed they had left a phone connected and charging via a power bank in their checked luggage

In July last year, a power bank caught fire on a Bangkok Airways flight from Samui to Hong Kong.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organizations had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security, which was then led by Secretary Kristi Noem, violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, contesting efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

FEMA responded in a statement late Saturday saying that while it does not comment on personnel matters and ongoing litigation, “DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season.”

“We’re ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters,” the statement said. “FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In the opinion, Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security, and that prevented Homeland Security from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted for staff reductions in the federal government as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by the Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found that the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON: A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organization had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, pushing back on efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security and that prevented DHS from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted in the federal government for staff reductions as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs, and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by The Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

MADRID: Charles Leclerc and Ferrari teammate Lewis Hamilton said they had cleared the air face-to-face after a clash at last weekend’s Italian Grand Prix but there were still no written rules of engagement between the pair.

Seven-times Formula One world champion Hamilton had called for written rules after being forced off onto the gravel by Leclerc on the opening lap and dropping from fourth to 10th.

The Briton eventually finished sixth while Leclerc crashed out. Asked at the Spanish Grand Prix on Thursday whether ‌anything had been ‌put in writing, Hamilton replied, “There was not.

“I’m sure ‌at some stage we’ll discuss how we can be better but we’ve not had a lot of time to turn around. You can’t change things in two days.”

Hamilton said there had been no shying away between the two drivers when they came to discuss what had happened.

“We sat face to face, just him and I, and talked about it,” he said. “We were just both open and honest and we squashed it. And ‌we can move on… I think ‌it’s healthy. It’s a relationship we have built over time.”

“Of course there’s going ‌to be frustrations… I’m sure there will be more times (where) we ‌are close (on track) because we are very close on pace. We both want to win just as much as each other and we both want to do well for the team as well.”

Ferrari are second in the championship ‌after 13 rounds, 122 points behind Mercedes. Hamilton is third overall, 76 points behind Mercedes’ leader Kimi Antonelli.

Leclerc told reporters he had reviewed footage after the race and recognised he had gone too far.

“I said it to Lewis and I think it’s very clear what we should do or should avoid going forward but I won’t go into much more details of what we’ve said,” added the Monegasque.

“The only thing I can say is it definitely did not affect the good relationship that we have and it will not affect anything going forward and that is the most important for me really.”

Leclerc said his crash at Monza at the end of the second lap had felt like a big one and he had suffered a tight neck for a couple of days after but was now fine.

Court also acquits Dow Jones on the charge of dismissal over Selina Cheng’s leadership role with the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones for trying to deter a journalist from taking a union role, but also acquitted the publisher on the charge of dismissal over the role, in a case that raised concerns about media freedom in the city.

Selina Cheng, who was fired by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in July 2024, had accused the newspaper’s publisher Dow Jones of unlawfully terminating her employment over her role chairing the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and of trying to prevent her from standing for a union position.

The court found the company guilty on Thursday of trying to prevent Cheng’s right to run for the union chairmanship.

However, the judge sided with Dow Jones’ argument that she was made redundant because of corporate restructuring, and not due to her role as HKJA chair.

The right to take part in a trade union is protected by Hong Kong’s labour laws. An employer found guilty on “prevent or deter” charges could be fined up to 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,755).

“If reporters’ employment rights are not sufficiently safeguarded, or when their rights are violated and not enforced in law, then we can no longer work safely as reporters,” Cheng told reporters outside the court after the ruling.

The judge said the company’s requirement that Cheng seek prior permission to take a union role was an “unjustified deterrent” of her rights.

Dow Jones said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating next steps.

“The Wall Street Journal has a long and proud history as an employer in Hong Kong. Throughout that time, we have remained deeply respectful of its labour laws and supportive of our employees’ rights, while publishing excellent, impartial journalism about the region,” a spokesperson said.

Sentencing is expected to be handed down at a later date.

Cheng launched a private prosecution last year for illegal termination, after filing a complaint with the Labour Department that did not result in a prosecution.

Founded in 1968, the HKJA is Hong Kong’s longest-established journalists’ organisation and one of the last remaining groups advocating for media rights in the city.

Although Hong Kong was once known for its independent news outlets, media freedom has come under strain and many outlets have disbanded since Beijing imposed a 2020 national security law following sometimes violent pro-democracy protests, according to international rankings and HKJA surveys.

California and nearly two dozen other states warned the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to move forward with President Trump’s new rules for mail ballots in the November election would cause “chaos” and could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

“In some States … compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the states argued. “In the remaining States, there would be chaos — and a significant risk that millions more voters would be denied the ability to vote.”

The Democrat-led coalition — which includes California, 23 other states and the District of Columbia — also cited objections from lower-ranking state and elections officials in conservative states that have not objected to the Postal Service’s position, including the lieutenant governor and other officials in Utah saying implementation of the new rules would “be an unmitigated disaster.”

Similar warnings have emanated from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point,” the Democrat-led states wrote, pointing out that some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots.

The states’ arguments were in response to the Trump administration over the weekend filing an emergency appeal to the high court, asking it to overturn a lower-court ruling halting the plan from being implemented for the Nov. 3 election.

The new rules — developed in response to a March executive order from Trump — require states to submit their complete voter lists to the Postal Service, and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service. They require the Postal Service to then reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s order also directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own list of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump and other supporters of the changes — including top officials from a dozen Republican-led states — argue they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens. Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

The Democrat-led states sued to block the changes on multiple grounds, including that neither Trump nor the Postal Service have any authority to regulate state-run elections, that the changes would illegally prevent eligible voters from casting ballots, and that the timeline imposed by the new rule — formally issued by the Postal Service on Aug. 21 — made compliance by November impossible.

Independent voting rights groups also sued, alleging the new rules threatened to disenfranchise voters and make their work educating voters on their options for casting a ballot impossible to carry out.

A Postal Service whistleblower recently added skepticism to the agency’s ability to implement the new rules on its end, alleging in a statement published by congressional Democrats that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots was built in a “slapdash” manner, is “fundamentally flawed” and threatens as built to reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted requests from the states and the independent groups to halt the plans from being implemented nationwide, issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the Postal Service to cease all work on them.

The Trump administration then bypassed the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to ask the Supreme Court for relief from Talwani’s order.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, argued that the warnings from states that the changes are unworkable, represent an overreach of federal authority or would cause chaos in November are all baseless.

“The Rule ensures that States remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and eligibility to vote by mail, and it does not dictate ballot content, mailing or receipt deadlines, or ballot-counting procedures,” Sauer wrote. “The Rule thus plainly does not seize control of States’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.”

Sauer argued that if the court does not allow the changes to proceed, it would cause “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the States themselves, and the voting public” by “nullifying the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud.”

Experts have consistently rejected those claims — including in their own filings before the high court.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, joined three other election experts to argue to the lower court that the Trump administration’s claims of injury were “speculative and weak.” They noted that the administration had “offered no evidence” in court that the new rules would “stop any appreciable amount of voter fraud or even that voter fraud through the mails is a widespread problem that USPS should address.”

Meanwhile, they wrote, there was “undisputed evidence” presented to the lower court that the Postal Service is “still not prepared to implement its new rule or do so accurately and efficiently, even as states have begun mailing out their ballots,” and that the “harm to the states and to voters is enormous, as the rule threatens to disenfranchise millions of elderly voters, disabled voters, military voters and all others including the most vulnerable who depend on mail voting, in both red and blue states.”

The Democrat-led states also noted that the Trump administration hadn’t proven that widespread voter fraud is a legitimate threat, but had shown it is ill prepared itself to implement the changes without causing widespread disruption — as evidenced in part by the whistleblower’s claims.

It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will rule, though a relatively quick decision is expected given the emergency nature of the appeal.

LONDON: British police said Wednesday that they have opened a criminal investigation into allegations that anti-immigration party Reform UK broke rules barring foreign donations.

Last week, Channel 4 broadcast an undercover investigation in which two senior Reform UK officials appeared to discuss ways money from an American financier could be channeled through his U.K.-based son to get around the rules.

U.K. electoral law says parties can only accept donations from British voters or U.K.-registered businesses.

The Metropolitan Police said that after the broadcast, the force “received a number of reports relating to donations and polling involving a political party.

“Detectives have assessed the information provided and determined that there are potential offenses requiring investigation,” it said.

Reform UK said it “denies any wrongdoing and will fully cooperate with the investigation.”

The party suspended Dan Jukes, a longtime adviser to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, and party policy chief James Orr, after the documentary was aired. But Farage denied that there was any breach of electoral law.

The program showed two men purporting to be a U.S. financier and his U.K.-based son discussing with Jukes, in the presence of Farage, how 500,000 pounds ($675,000) could be donated to the party through the son. The “son” was actually a reporter from investigative group Verbatim, and the “father” an actor.

In separate footage, Orr, a Cambridge University theologian, appeared to discuss getting the U.S. donor to pay for opinion polls commissioned by Reform UK.

In a speech to the party’s conference on Friday, Farage insisted Reform UK hadn’t broken any rules or accepted “dodgy money.” He accused “foreign-funded hard-left activists” of being behind what he called “entrapment.” Verbatim is an offshoot of the Center for Climate Reporting, a nonprofit investigative group that says it’s funded by grants and donations.

Reform UK was facing questions about its funding even before the broadcast. Farage is being investigated by Parliament’s standards watchdog over an undeclared 5 million-pound ($6.7 million) gift he received from a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire in 2024.

Police said Wednesday that the potential offenses raised by the TV program “are similar in nature to matters already under investigation by the Met’s Special Enquiry Team relating to donations made to the same political party. As a result, these matters will form part of that ongoing investigation.”

Founded in 2018 as the Brexit Party to push for a hard break from the European Union, Reform UK has grown rapidly in membership and support since changing its name in 2021 and honing its anti-establishment, anti-immigration message.

Though it holds just eight of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, it has often led opinion polls and was the big winner in local elections in May, a result that helped spur a panicky Labour Party to replace then-leader Keir Starmer with new Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

In July, Farage quit his House of Commons seat in protest of the parliamentary standards investigation, saying he would run for reelection and let voters be his judge. He easily won the August election, which was dismissed as a stunt by his critics and boycotted by all the other main parties.

The regulations are being updated again from September 6

A change in EU border rules comes into force on Sunday, meaning everyone from the UK heading into Europe from today could face longer queues. The European Union has been rolling out a new Entry/Exit System (EES), which sees everyone from the UK entering countries like France, Spain, Greece and Portugal having to wait for a machine to enter biometric data.

That includes having your picture taken, having fingerprints scanned and allowing the machine to take a copy of your passport. The system was launched at the end of last year, but queues were so long – sometimes around four hours – that the machines were switched off at some borders and a new date for full use was set – September 6, 2026.

EES was originally planned to go live in 2022 but has been repeatedly delayed due to technical problems and then to avoid peak travel times. It was officially launched in October 2025 and was supposed to be fully rolled out within six months.

By April this year, there had already been severe queue delays, with passengers missing flights, and Greece temporarily suspended EES – followed by suspensions at multiple other EU borders. Those suspensions are supposed to end today.

Airlines have called for the EU to extend the suspension until the end of this year. And there are reports that not everyone will face EES, with France reportedly suffering technical problems that could see it out of use this week.

The fingerprinting kiosks at Port of Dover and London St Pancras are not currently working. A Eurotunnel spokesperson told The Guardian it is “awaiting confirmation from the French authorities on the timing of this next phase”.

A source told The Guardian some countries, including Greece, may continue to use manual checks rather than the automated system despite the September 6 deadline.

Airlines trade body Iata last week called for an official extension, saying there are still delays and still reports of missed flights.

A European Commission spokesperson said: “We are in close and constructive contact with those few member states where some adjustments are needed at certain border crossing points. And during an additional period of operational adjustment that is needed at these few operational border crossing points, the commission stands ready to provide additional support to these member states.”

BRITS jetting off to countries including Spain and France should be aware of new entry rules which are set to be rolled out in full in just a matter of days.

The EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES), which is an automated border check for non-EU nationals, comes into full force on September 7.

It involves people from third-party countries such as the UK having their fingerprints registered and photograph taken to enter the Schengen Area, which consists of 29 European countries, mainly in the EU.

This system first launched back in April, and was linked to lengthy queues and in some cases passengers missed their flights.

As it stands, EU member states are able to pause the checks in “exceptional circumstances”. This includes when queues get too long.

But come September 7, they will no longer be able to temporarily switch off the system at airports.

BEST BREAK

The holiday destinations where all-inclusive breaks are CHEAPER than B&B

BILLS BOOST

Brits can get money back on bills and restaurant spending with new bank offer 

It means the rules will be fully enforced with no exceptions, raising fears of even longer queues for British holidaymakers.

Popular holiday destinations including Greece, Spain and France have all used flexibility when needed.

Back in July, countries including Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland wrote to Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner asking to keep the congestion EES opt-out, EuroWeekly News reported.

The countries backed a full roll out, but did not want to face a cliff edge before Christmas.

A decision has not yet been made on the extension, so travellers should prepare to use the EES machines on September 7.

It comes as the new system has caused huge problems for those holidaying abroad this summer.

Some Brits reported waiting for up to six hours in airports and others even missed their flight.

The anti-immigration Reform UK party said two of its senior officials had stepped down on Friday, following allegations that they were secretly filmed appearing to discuss ways to circumvent UK electoral laws on foreign donations.

The far-right party, whose popularity has soared in the past two years, is already embroiled in several other funding scandals involving its leader Nigel Farage. On Friday, it announced an internal probe into the latest case, which was brought to light by a Channel 4 investigation.

Reform is currently holding its annual party conference in Birmingham, central England.

Here’s what we know about the foreign funding claims and how they could affect British politics.

What did the Channel 4 investigation show?

Channel 4, an independent broadcaster, aired footage of senior Reform officials Dan Jukes and James Orr meeting with undercover reporters who were posing as prospective Reform backers from the United States.

In one instance during the programme, which was broadcast on Thursday night, footage was shown of Jukes appearing to talk about a proposal for Reform to receive a 500,000-pound ($675,000) donation from one of the men, who was presenting himself as an American financier, through his son, who he said lives in the UK.

The “son” was actually another journalist from investigative group Verbatim, which recorded the exchange.

In separate footage, Orr appeared to discuss a plan for the US donor to fund opinion polls for Reform UK rather than donating the money directly.

He told the undercover reporter that “we just don’t have British-resident donors, British entities, that would support us”.

During the investigation, Verbatim reported that Reform officials arranged for the US donor to pay more than 30,000 pounds ($40,500) to fund three opinion polls, without disclosing the source of the funds.

Channel 4 said it had verified the findings from Verbatim, an offshoot of the Centre for Climate Reporting.

What are the UK’s rules against foreign funding for political parties?

Under UK electoral law, political parties may only accept donations from British voters or UK-registered businesses. Donations from individuals or organisations based overseas are strictly forbidden.

In a statement on Friday, a UK Electoral Commission spokesperson said political parties must report all “permissible donations” they accept exceeding 11,180 pounds ($15,120) and all “impermissible donations” exceeding 500 pounds ($676).

“Parties are responsible for ensuring their internal processes and controls are fit for purpose,” the spokesperson said. “Information about any potential attempt to evade the controls on donations is for the police to consider.”

How has Reform responded to the allegations?

Following the programme’s broadcast, Reform initially issued a statement denying any wrongdoing and claiming the allegations were a hoax.

In a later statement, however, the party said it was conducting an internal probe and that Orr and Jukes had stepped down pending its outcome.

Orr, the party’s policy head, said he had agreed to step down temporarily and would “cooperate fully” with the investigation.

Jukes, Farage’s long-term aide, denied any wrongdoing but said he had “stepped back from politics in order to clear my name”.

Farage accused the undercover journalists of “entrapment” and told broadcaster LBC, “they got a couple of our contractors to say things that perhaps should not have been said”.

“And as a result of that, you know, they have been removed this morning. And yeah, you know, I’m not happy about it,” Farage said.

“The party has broken no laws, the party has not taken any dodgy money or anything like that whatsoever,” Farage insisted.

Will Reform face legal consequences?

It remains to be seen. The UK’s ruling Labour Party has written to the police asking them to investigate possible criminal offences.

The Metropolitan Police said it was aware of the allegations in the broadcast and would assess any information provided to them.

This does not amount to the formal launch of an investigation.

Why does this matter?

The latest donation scandal is another blow for Reform, which has seen its place as the UK’s most popular party slip in opinion polls in recent months.

Last year, polling by YouGov suggested that Reform had become the most popular political party, and would likely win a UK general election if one had been held then. At that point, Labour was trailing far behind in the polls – projected to win just 27.3 percent of parliamentary seats, compared with Reform’s 41.7 percent. The former ruling Conservative Party stood at just 7 percent.

But a poll this week by YouGov showed Reform now tied with the UK’s left-wing Labour Party with 23 percent support each. The Conservatives have caught up with 20 percent.

This is not the first funding scandal Reform has grappled with, either. In July, Farage dramatically stepped down as Member of Parliament for Clacton amid allegations, also revealed in the UK media, that convicted fraudster George Cottrell, 32, recruited and paid three staff to work on Farage’s social media before the 2024 general election and has continued to allow Farage to use a five-storey Georgian townhouse he rented near Buckingham Palace.

Farage ultimately re-won his seat in Clacton at a by-election but still faces the prospect of a parliamentary inquiry into undeclared funding of 5 million pounds ($6.7m) from Thailand-based billionaire and crypto investor Christopher Harborne, who paid for Farage’s personal security before he announced his candidacy in the 2024 general election. So far, Farage denies all wrongdoing.

This week, Farage told the BBC that the parliamentary inquiry was unfair. He said there was a “wilful attempt, and it’s gone on now for months, to say that everything to do with Reform, that every individual involved with Reform is somehow a crook”.

This is evidence of “the establishment in a very coordinated way fighting back”, he claimed.

However, Justin Fisher, professor of political science at Brunel University of London, told Al Jazeera Reform’s latest donation scandal would further hurt Farage’s standing both within and outside his party, and could cost Reform votes in the next elections.

“If this was an isolated incident, then Reform would probably be able to brush it off,” said Fisher. “But it comes on top of serious questions about a donation to Nigel Farage, and a donation to Reform which allegedly had overseas links. This all contributes to a narrative which Reform is having great difficulty avoiding.”

OVER one million tourists visit Thailand every year – especially in the autumn, winter thanks to its sunny climate.

But for anyone heading there soon, there’s bad news as the amount of time you can stay is being slashed in half.

Since July 2024, the country allowed tourists from 93 countries – including the UK – to stay in the country for 60 days without a visa.

But in a matter of weeks, the allowance is being cut in half.

Starting September 15, 2026, nationals of 60 countries and territories, including the UK will be allowed to stay visa-free for up to 30 days. 

According to officials, the list was revised to “reflect current circumstances, taking into account national security and economic considerations as well as the promotion of tourism”.

ALL IN

UK holiday parks where you can go ALL INCLUSIVE from £25pp with shows & waterparks

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

Tourists can visit still visit 30 days visa-free for tourism, business engagements, and urgent or ad-hoc work.

Advice on the GOV.UK has a warning for anyone who stays in Thailand longer than the given period – or if you stay without a visa.

It reads: “If you overstay the period of your visa, you will get a fine of 500 Thai baht a day up to a maximum of 20,000 baht. You risk being:

• held in detention
• deported at your own expense
• banned from re-entering Thailand for up to 10 years

“Conditions in detention centres can be harsh.”

Other entry requirements are that your passport has an expiry of at least six months after the date you arrive and have at least one blank page for stamping.

Travellers also need to complete a digital card at least three days before arrival.

MORE travel chaos could be on the horizon for Brits as a change to the new Entry/Exit System (EES) is being introduced in a matter of days.

EES has already resulted in huge delays at airports, missed flights and these could get worse in a few weeks’ time.

Currently, EU member states are allowed to pause EES checks in “exceptional circumstances”, which includes when queues get too long.

But from September 7, EU states will no longer be able to temporarily switch off the system at their airports.

Over the summer when the number of holidaymakers increased, countries were able to switch the system off for up to six hours.

With an influx of passengers, some countries that made use of this over the summer included France, Portugal and Greece.

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

CHECK IN

Sunny European city breaks cheaper than a night out… £14 flights & £3 JUGS of wine

At some airports, the machines had to be shut down and turned on again when they get overwhelmed, just to get them to work.

Air France-KLM told Politico: “When lines form during the busy summer  months, the system is shut off to ensure smooth transit at our hubs in Paris and Amsterdam.”

However, from September 7, EES will be fully enforced with no exceptions.

EES was first introduced in April and requires Brits to register biometrics upon any first entry to a Schengen country.

However, this registration process has been causing long queues and delays at border control across European airports.

Some Brits reported waiting for up to six hours in airports and others even missed their flight.

There have been some other issues as well including one woman who is an identical twin and faced a problem when she was mistaken for her sister.

And older passengers have faced a problem with ‘faded fingerprints’.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump‘s massive, $400 million White House ballroom project can continue — over dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices.

In the 5-4 ruling, the high court said the National Trust for Historical Preservation likely lacks the legal right to challenge the project and that national security reasons favor its continuation. This could give the Trump administration time to finish the project as lawsuits over it continue.

The court did not say if the project was legal. In a dissent, Roberts said that it likely is not, as the project was not approved by Congress.

“The White House is not just any building,” he wrote. “In failing to appreciate as much, the court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the executive’s likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”

Roberts called Monday’s decision “no victory for the separation of powers.”

The decision replaces a temporary court order from earlier August that allowed construction to continue.

Federal courts said earlier that the ballroom project needed to halt because it had not been approved by Congress. Administration lawyers had argued that Trump has total authority to renovate federal buildings and that the ballroom and connected security features are necessary.

The nearly 90,000-square-foot ballroom will be located on the former site of the East Wing, which Trump ordered demolished. The president initially said that it would be paid for by private donations, but The Washington Post has reported that the project (which it estimated will cost$600 million) will include $300 million in tax dollars.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to finish building his new White House ballroom with mostly private money and without approval from Congress.

By a 5-4 vote. the justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump and his lawyers on Monday and set aside a judge’s order that would stop the construction.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with the court’s three liberals.

The outcome turned on standing.

The conservative majoritysaid the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were not personally injured by the White House ballroom project and therefore, did not have to standing to sue Trump or the National Park Service.

They also said Trump and his appointees had stressed the new ballroom was needed for national security and said the lower courts judges should not have interfered.

The decision in effect gives a green light to Trump’s go-it-alone approach which is in keeping with his history as a hotel builder. He believed the White House needed a grand ballroom that could seat hundreds of dignitaries. And he ordered the East Wing torn down in October to make room of his larger ballroom.

He also said most of the project would be paid for by $400 million in private donations.

But the Constitution gave Congress the power to manage property belonging to the United States. A 1912 law says new buildings “shall not erected…on public grounds within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Trump chose to ignore the law and did not seek approval from Congress which is led by Republicans.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, contending Trump was a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Trump had no authority to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds without the approval of Congress, and he ordered a halt to the above-ground construction.

The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed his decision by a 2-1 vote.
“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” wrote Judge Patricia Millett for the appeals court.

Trump’s lawyers sent a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court on Aug. 14.

The court’s majority allowed Trump to fend off the legal challenge by concluding the historic preservationists could not show they were harmed by a huge new ballroom that may dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge in California on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when it sought to deport international students critical of Israel.

Judge Noël Wise, of the Northern District of California, sided with student journalists at the Stanford Daily, which sued because some of its noncitizen writers had been afraid of deportation for expressing opinions critical of the administration’s policies.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote in a 90-page ruling. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.”

Wise ruled that it was unconstitutional for State Secretary Marco Rubio to use immigration law to deport students for their opinions.

Last year, Rubio sought the deportations of several student activists in the pro-Palestininan movement, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk.

Fearing similar repression, the Stanford Daily sued to stop the government from revoking the visas of other students with views critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Wise said the strength of the Constitution “is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” the judge continued. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk.

“In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, whose Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the government on behalf of the students, said, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” the attorney added in a statement.