sex

LOVE Island Australia beauty Gabby broke down in tears after her partner Jotham had a “filthy” sex chat with a villa rival.

The brunette stunner, who allegedly has the biggest boobs in the show’s history, couldn’t believe her ears when she walked in on Jotham excitedly reacting to Mia’s high sex drive.

After waiting for around 30 minutes for her man to appear, Gabby heard his voice booming from inside the villa and tiptoed up the stairs to investigate.

Her eyes soon popped as she heard Mia say: “My sex drive is insane. The guy that I would see, if I was in a situationship, we’d have sex like five times a day.”

Laughing, Jotham replies: “Milk that man dry. Mumma ain’t finished.”

Despite their horniness, the pair agreed that neither would have sex in the villa.

STAR’S ORDEAL

Love Island star MUGGED in LA as he chases thieves and sends warning to fans

WHAT A WOMAN

Love Island star becomes a dad for as girlfriend is rushed to hospital

Having overheard the whole chat, Gabby said to camera: “The conversation is just absolute filth.

“I just thought Jotham would shut down that sort of conversation and walk out.”

She later broke down in tears over Jotham’s response to Mia’s confession, saying: “I actually see a relationship with him, and I feel that’s not being reciprocated.

“And that’s why all of this is really hurting me.”

Viewers sided with her, with one writing on Instagram: “Not the biggest fan of Gabby but I do think for the first time, she has a point.”

A second said: “I love Gabby so much.”

A third posted: “Idc Gabby is right for this, I would feel some type of way about my man speaking about s** with two girls, especially one that has shown she has an interest in him.”

The battle over the files in the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has reached a new turn with the United States Congress voting for the Department of Justice to release its information on the case. As the world waits for what the full files may reveal, what do we know about the rich and elite who surrounded Epstein?

Los Angeles County’s district attorney has opened an investigation into claims of fraud within the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said Wednesday his office has started a wide-ranging probe into claims that plaintiffs made up stories of abuse in order to sue the county, which agreed to the historic $4-billion sex abuse settlement this spring.

The announcement follows Times investigations that found nine people who said they were paid small amounts of cash by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls. Four of them said they fabricated the claims.

“They looked at this opportunity to compensate these true victims of sex abuse as an opportunity to personally profit and engage in some of the most greedy and heinous conduct,” Hochman said at a news conference Wednesday morning in the Hall of Justice downtown. “We are going to aggressively go after them.”

All nine plaintiffs had their cases filed by Downtown LA Law Group, a personal injury firm that represents roughly 2,700 people in the county settlement. The firm has denied wrongdoing. The Times could not reach the recruiters who made the alleged payments to plaintiffs for comment.

Hochman indicated his investigation, still in its early stages, showed this was just a small fraction of the “significant number of fraudsters involved in these settlement claims.”

Hochman emphasized the inquiry would focus on those higher up the chain — lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent forms — and not the plaintiffs.

Many of the people The Times spoke with who filed false claims were poor and in unstable housing. They said they desperately needed the cash promised by recruiters, which ranged from $20 to $200. All were flagged down outside county social services offices, where many were on their way to get food assistance and cash aid.

Hochman said any person who contacted his office about filing a fraudulent claim would not have the statements haunt them in a criminal prosecution.

“If you provide us truthful information, complete information, any of the words that you use will not be used against you,” said Hochman, adding the offer did not extend to attorneys or medical professionals. “It’s not something that we offer lightly to anyone.”

Hochman said Downtown LA Law Group was one of the law firms they were focused on, but the probe was not limited to them. He said the investigation would touch anyone who helped fraudulent cases get filed.

“I’m happy to label that entire group as a group of fraudsters conspiring to defraud a settlement where the money should be going to legitimate sex abuse survivors and victims,” he said.

The law group has denied paying plaintiffs and said it only wants “justice for real victims” of sexual abuse. The firm declined to comment further Wednesday.

Shortly after The Times’ investigation, the county supervisors voted to launch their own inquiry into possible misconduct by “legal representatives” involved in the lawsuits. The county set up a hotline for tips from the public, and moved to ban “predatory solicitation” outside county social services offices.

The supervisors also joined a chorus of voices — including California lawmakers, labor leaders and a powerful attorney trade group — calling for the State Bar to investigate. The State Bar does not comment on potential investigations, but has previously said California law generally prohibits making payments to procure clients, a practice known as capping.

Downtown LA Law Group represents roughly 2,700 people suing the county. Hochman said the firm is one of several he’s focused on.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

A flood of sex abuse claims followed the passage of AB 218, a state law that gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a new window to sue that stretched far beyond the previous statute of limitations. The law, which went into effect in 2020, has led to thousands of lawsuits filed against California school districts, governments and religious institutions.

This spring, the county agreed to pay $4 billion to resolve thousands of claims from victims who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes. In October, the county agreed to a second settlement worth $828 million over another set of similar claims.

Hochman noted the first settlement would have massive financial ramifications for decades for the county, which acts as a social safety net for the region. The county will pay the settlement out over the next five years and has asked most departments to trim their budgets to help pay for it. The district attorney’s budget, Hochman said, had been slashed by $24 million, in part, to help pay for the cases.

“Every penny that a fraudster gets is a penny taken away from a sex abuse victim that validly and legitimately suffered that abuse at the hands of someone [in] Los Angeles County,” said Hochman. “It is not free money.”

KELLY Brook once demanded very steamy sex scenes were cut from an erotic thriller after they “became something different” to what she’d intended.

In the early noughties, actress Kelly starred in Survival Island, also known as Three, alongside her ex Billy Zane.

The sizzling movie features Kelly and Billy in the lead roles as a wealthy couple Jennifer and Jack marooned on a desert island after their luxury yacht catches fire at sea.

Only three people survive the accident, the couple and hunky crew member Manuel, who develops an infatuation with Jennifer that drives Jack crazy.

What follows is an intense love triangle with deadly consequences.

Kelly said in 2005: “It’s a very sexy film, but there are scenes that I’ve asked to be removed.

model behaviour

Inside I’m A Celeb star Kelly Brook’s DECADE long feud with Katie Price

old wound

Piers Morgan breaks silence on I’m A Celeb star Kelly Brook’s feud with Ant & Dec

“You go into a film with the idea of what you want to achieve and then it gets into the hands of others and it becomes something different.”

She added that her decision was backed by Billy, whom she became romantic with while filming the flick in the Bahamas.

The film was widely-panned by critics with scathing reviews dubbing it “dull” and “appalling” despite its sex scenes.

Glamour model turned TV presenter Kelly later found love with hunky Frenchman Jeremy Parisi in 2015 after several high-profile engagements, including to Hollywood actors Jason Statham and Billy Zane, both 58, and rugby star Thom Evans, 40.

Her first engagement was to Brit actor Jason but they called it quits in 2003, with Kelly going on to meet Titanic star Billy Zane in 2005.

They dated for four years before she called it off, with a source saying at the time: “After much soul-searching, Kelly decided that Billy is not the man she wants to marry and has called off the engagement.”

Kelly’s ex Jason is now married to Victoria’s Secret star Rosie Huntington-Whiteley after they met on the set of Transformers back in 2010.

Billy – who is set to play Marlon Brando in a new biopic – later got engaged to model Candice Neil and the couple welcomed two daughters.

Kelly recently made a shock confession on Loose Women about dumping an unnamed ex just a day before they were due to tie the knot.

“I didn’t jilt him,” she explained.

“But I called it off on the day. I was in my wedding dress.”

She added: “The jet was waiting, we were going to Vegas that day, and I was just crying. It was like a movie – it was all very dramatic.

“I was in a dress, it was just horrific. It was the most horrific thing. But we stayed together, and he kind of came around to it and understood why. I’m not going to mention who it was.”

Kelly, now 45, reflected on the relationship’s significant age gap and said: “I was 25 and they were like 42, a lot older.

“They should have known better.”

She added: “I felt I was really manipulated and coerced into something that I wasn’t ready for.

“I kind of went along as a people pleaser. Sometimes you want to stay with the person, but you’re not necessarily ready for that kind of commitment.

SEE CLEARLY

Mechanic reveals ‘secret’ button that will defrost your windows even quicker

waltzing off

La Voix’s statement in full as injured star is forced to pull out of Strictly

“And so, from my point of view, I went along with it until the very last minute and then was like, hang on a minute, I’m not ready for this now.

“So it wasn’t like I jilted them, but it was just the whole situation was wrong. It wasn’t like there was big preparations for a wedding, with family there.”

Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is serving four years in federal prison for using prostitutes in “freak-offs,” is under investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in connection with new allegations of sexual assault. A record producer alleges Combs assaulted him on two occasions.

The sheriff’s Special Victims Unit initiated the probe because one of the incidents occurred in East Los Angeles, according to Nicole Nishida, a department spokeswoman. The producer reported the incidents to police in Largo, Fla.

Florida-based music producer John Hay revealed in media interviews that he was the “John Doe” plaintiff from a civil lawsuit filed in July alleging assault.

The producer, who was not named by law enforcement investigating the allegations, alleged he was subjected to sex acts in 2020 and 2021 while working on a remix project of music by Biggie Smalls, a.k.a. Christopher Wallace, which put him into contact with Bad Boy Records and company executive Combs.

A spokesman for Combs did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the investigation.

The lawsuit states that, in December 2020, the producer was at a warehouse in Los Angeles that housed some of Notorious B.I.G.’s clothing. The items were being donated to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame later that year, when Biggie would eventually be inducted.

Combs “provided drugs to everyone present. Everyone there was running around the warehouse and tripping on the drugs,” the lawsuit alleges. Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit states.

Combs subsequently threw the shirt over the producer’s lap and arm, laughed and said “Rest in peace, Biggie” before leaving the room.

In an incident in March 2021, the plaintiff claims that he was set up. He states in the lawsuit he was lured to a meeting by Biggie’s son, Christopher “CJ” Wallace Jr., and music producer Willie Mack.

But upon his arrival, his head was covered, and Combs appeared and began yelling and ordered everyone to leave, the lawsuit alleges. Combs then allegedly attempted “to force plaintiff to perform oral copulation on Combs, while plaintiff’s head was still covered.”

“I’m pushing for criminal charges to be filed against Combs at a state and federal level,” Hay told ShockYa earlier this month in an interview where he stated he was the civil suit plaintiff.

According to a police report first obtained last month by People magazine, Hay reported the allegations on Sept. 20 of this year to Largo, Fla., police.

Gary Dordick, the producer’s lawyer, said “we intend to present out client’s case to a jury in California and we are confident that the truth will prevail.” Dordick said in a message to The Times that he would not comment further given that a defamation lawsuit was filed last week by Wallace.

Wallace, the son of Biggie Smalls and singer Faith Evans, sued Hay for defamation in a Florida federal court last week, calling Hay’s recent interviews “a calculated smear campaign” that included false statements that he attended Combs’ so-called freak-off parties and “conspired to lure Hay to a location where Combs purportedly assaulted him.”

An attorney for Mack could not immediately be reached for comment.

Wallace says in his defamation action that Hay worked on the remix project, titled “Ready to Dance,” with Wallace and Mack in 2020. A single was released, but the remaining songs were not, due to a lack of interest.

According to the suit, Hay was upset over the decision not to release the music he worked on and began accusing Mack of “inappropriate and abusive behavior” in 2021. But Hay never made an assault allegation, the suit claims.

Combs is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Fort Dixon, a New Jersey low-security federal penitentiary.

COPS are investigating fresh sexual assault allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs.

Investigators said they received a report on Friday from a police department in Florida, where the alleged victim lives, according to ABC.

The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department Special Victims Bureau is undertaking the investigation into the new accusations.

There hasn’t been a “substantiated” allegation of sexual abuse by staff against an inmate in the nation’s largest jail system since 2021.

At first glance, the statistic — based on Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department data — might appear to indicate that a federal law called the Prison Rape Elimination Act has finally accomplished its mission more than two decades after it was enacted by Congress.

But a broad array of local oversight officials and advocacy groups are raising eyebrows over the claim, and bringing new scrutiny to how the Sheriff’s Department investigates allegations of sexual abuse made by inmates against their jailers.

L.A. County incarcerates about 13,000 people — including roughly 1,500 women — throughout its network of jails watched over by sheriff’s deputies.

Sheriff’s Department records show that between January 2022 and September 2025, inmates filed 592 allegations of abuse and harassment against staff. None were deemed “substantiated,” which the Sheriff’s Department defines on its website as “an allegation that was investigated and determined to have occurred.”

The suggestion that there has not been enough evidence to support even one alleged incident by staff against an inmate in nearly four years has struck some tasked with monitoring the Sheriff’s Department as absurd.

“When you have this many complaints and you have zero that are founded, there is something wrong with the process,” said George B. Newhouse, a member of the L.A. Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

L.A. County’s Office of Inspector General and advocacy groups, including the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Peace Over Violence, also shared concerns about the lack of substantiated allegations during a Nov. 4 virtual discussion of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA. The law was enacted in 2003 in an effort to reduce widespread sexual abuse behind bars.

In 2012, the federal government instituted a set of rules known as PREA standards, which laid out steps that jail and prison operators are required to take to prevent and reduce sexual abuse and harassment between inmates and staff.

L.A. County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Ryan Vaccaro said the department “has zero tolerance for sexual abuse and sexual harassment.” He added that monthly town hall meetings are held in jails to educate inmates about PREA and record any questions and complaints they have about the federal standards.

“Our team is dedicated to ensuring our residents know we have a zero-tolerance policy and know how to get help when they need it,” he said. “All PREA allegations are documented and processed promptly, thoroughly and objectively.”

During a public meeting last month, Hans Johnson, the chair of the Civilian Oversight Commission, pressed John Barkley, assistant director and PREA coordinator at the Sheriff’s Department, to explain the lack of substantiated reports, and how long it typically takes for allegations to be investigated.

Dozens of the harassment and abuse claims identified in the sheriff’s department records are listed as “pending,” which the department defines on its website as an “allegation still under investigation.”

“It kind of beggars credulity that that number of complaints could be raised and that none could be substantiated,” Johnson said. “It’s just a red flag.”

Barkley said “every case is investigated” and found to be either “substantiated, unsubstantiated or unfounded.” He said “every situation is different. The thing that we’re mandated to do is to do the investigation promptly and to do it thoroughly.”

In a statement a colleague read aloud at the Nov. 4 forum, Portland, Ore., resident Frank Mendoza said that while he was incarcerated at L.A.’s Twin Towers Correctional Facility in 2006, “officers at the jail repeatedly harassed me because I was openly gay” and one beat and raped him in his cell.

“I was then left in the cell naked, bloodied, and completely humiliated,” Mendoza said in his statement. “I tried to report what happened. First, I told the officer on the next shift who found me on the floor of my cell, and all he did was order me to get dressed. That was the norm. Officers didn’t tell on one another.”

Mendoza alleged he wasn’t provided medical treatment or examined for injuries caused by the assault. When he reported the rape, he found that “without a forensic exam, it was impossible to build a criminal case.”

Now, Mendoza gives voice to other people who have been victims of sexual abuse and harassment while incarcerated through his advocacy work as a member of Just Detention International’s Survivor Council.

“It’s clear the county still has a lot of work to do to ensure the safety of people in detention,” he said. “At the same time, the fact that such a hearing is happening is evidence to me of a culture shift and that people are listening.”

The Sheriff’s Department also tracks inmate-on-inmate allegations, which accounted for 296 reports of sexual abuse or harassment between January 2022 and June 2025. Of those, 28 were classified as “substantiated.”

The numbers have spiked since then, with 82 inmate-on-inmate allegations between July and September 2025. Of those claims, the department deemed five involving sexual abuse to be “substantiated,” along with another five claims of sexual harassment.

During that three-month period, inmates made 121 sexual abuse and harassment claims against staff, none of which have been identified as “substantiated” by the Sheriff’s Department.

Arthur Calloway, co-vice-chair of the Civilian Oversight Commission, asked at the October meeting whether the sheriff’s department could be trusted to investigate inmate claims against its own employees.

He added that, “if it was all objective, there would be some substantiated ones actually to trickle out” from claims filed since January 2022.

Barkley responded that “many of those” unsubstantiated outcomes are “dictated on whether the D.A. takes the case.” He added that “if the D.A. decides that they’re not going to prosecute the case with inmate-on-inmate, then it is going to be an unsubstantiated.”

The L.A. County district attorney’s office said in a statement that the Sheriff’s Department first conducts internal investigations of allegations of criminal activity. Then, the department “may present their investigation to our Justice System Integrity Division (JSID) to determine whether criminal charges should be filed,” the statement said.

The Sheriff’s Department can also opt “to discipline their employee administratively in addition to, or in lieu of, seeking criminal charges,” the statement said.

The prosecutor’s office noted that substantiated and unsubstantiated are terms used by the Sheriff’s Department for “administrative purposes,” not legal outcomes.

“JSID reviews all cases presented to them by law enforcement using the standard of whether charges can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” the D.A.’s office said.

The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that sexual abuse cases are investigated internally and that when they are “determined to meet the elements of a crime,” they “are submitted to the District Attorney’s Office.”

The department said that since January 2022, four such cases “resulted in administrative investigations and five were/are being investigated by” the department’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau. None of those have been deemed “substantiated.”

“Substantiated allegations, often require cooperation and some sort of evidence, which can make them more challenging,” the Sheriff’s Department said. “However, unsubstantiated allegations are more common because it has a lower threshold.”

Dara Williams, assistant inspector general, said it “would be much better if all complaints were investigated by people who were outside the chain of command.”

Otherwise, she said, when sheriff’s department employees are the ones determining “what triggers an investigation, there is some bias.”

Inspector General Max Huntsman told The Times that he believes the Sheriff’s Department is “not in compliance with PREA in many senses,” such as its internal policies and the physical state of its aging correctional facilities.

At the public meeting last month, Barkley, the PREA coordinator at the Sheriff’s Department, explained that a sergeant must record every sexual abuse and harassment allegation in a dedicated database by the end of the shift when it is received. After that, he said, the allegation is automatically sent to sheriff’s leaders and the inspector general’s office.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Johnson, the chair of the Civilian Oversight Commission, called on the Sheriff’s Department to take steps to ensure it is conducting fair and thorough reviews of all inmate allegations.

“It is unacceptable to have no substantiated cases reported,” he said.

Rams left tackle Alaric Jackson is being sued by a woman who alleges that Jackson recorded her without her consent during sex, repeatedly refused to delete the video and taunted her with it, ESPN reported.

Jackson was not available in the locker room after practice Thursday. A Rams official said the team was aware of the ESPN report but would not comment because it was an ongoing legal matter. Jackson and coach Sean McVay will address the matter on Friday, the official said.

Jackson, 27, was suspended for the first two games of the 2024 season for an unspecified violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy. The previous March, the Rams gave him a three-year contract that includes about $35 million in guarantees, according to Overthecap.com.

“It’s behind us now,” Jackson said in September 2024 after he served the suspension.

Asked if the suspension was warranted, Jackson said, “They did what they had to do, and I understand it,” he said. “So I’m just going to move past it.”

IRON Maiden rocker Bruce Dickinson says he took up fencing to help him fend off sex-hungry groupies. 

The heavy metal star, 67, turned to the sword-fighting sport to keep a clear mind — but ended up as one of Britain’s best competitors. 

Run to the Hills singer Bruce — worth about £100million – was at one point ranked No7 in the UK and an outside contender for the Olympics. 

He tried fencing as a teenager and then took it up as a hobby in 1983 to distract himself from the temptations of sex, booze and drugs after finding fame. 

He spent months training with Team GB and represented a semi-pro club.  

Asked why he picked up the blade, he told Classic Rock mag: “I was busy sh*****g everything that moved and none of it was healthy.  

concerts axed

Fans fear for huge Brit star as he pulls gigs over ‘extreme exhaustion’

LAST DANCE

Iconic rock band announce final ever gig in UK bringing six-decade career to end

“I remember something that (The Who guitarist) Pete Townshend once said about groupies — ‘The moment you realise you can click your finger and manipulate people into having sex with you, that’s the moment you’re going down the slippery slope’. 

“You can’t believe women are throwing themselves at you. You think, ‘Well this is nice’. And it is. It’s f*****g great. But there’s a dark side to this.  

“Where do you stop? When does it become a prop, like alcohol or cocaine?

“So that’s when I started doing extracurricular activities like fencing.  

“I was thinking, ‘I’ve got to do something to keep my brain clean’.”  

Bruce, also a qualified pilot who flies Iron Maiden’s private 747 on tour, still takes part in fencing competitions for his age group.  

The band has sold more than 130million albums since forming in London in 1975. 

British actor Pauline Collins, who earned an Oscar nomination for her turn as the stuck-in-a-rut housewife of “Shirley Valentine,” has died. She was 85.

Collins’ family said in a statement Thursday that the actor died peacefully this week at her care home in north London after living with Parkinson’s disease for several years. In the statement, her family said Collins “was so many things to so many people, playing a variety of roles in her life.”

“A bright, sparky, witty presence on stage and screen,” the family described the versatile actor, whose career began in the 1960s.

Collins was well into her 40s when she starred in “Shirley Valentine,” a witty but disgruntled homemaker who accepts a girlfriend’s offer to travel to Greece to bring much-needed spice back to her life. “Sex for breakfast, sex for dinner, sex for tea and sex for supper,” Shirley proudly declares in the 1989 film, directed by Lewis Gilbert.

For Collins, “Shirley Valentine” was more than just an ode to womanhood, self-love and self-discovery. It was also a chance to challenge the conventions of aging in entertainment, including by shooting a nude scene for the film.

“My only sorrow was that I wasn’t younger and thinner,” a 49-year-old Collins told The Times in 1989. “But if I were Jamie Lee Curtis, I wouldn’t have been right for the part.”

“Shirley Valentine,” which also starred Tom Conti as her on-screen Greek lover and Alison Steadman as her friend, led Collins to receive her sole Academy Award nomination, a nod in the leading actress category. The film also received an original song Oscar nomination for Patti Austin’s “The Girl Who Used to Be Me,” written by Marvin Hamlisch and husband-wife lyricist duo Alan and Marilyn Bergman.

Two years before the film’s premiere, Collins originated the role of Shirley Valentine in London for Willy Russell’s one-woman play of the same name. That led to her Broadway debut in 1989 and a Tony Award for best actress in a play the same year. She also won accolades for the play at the Laurence Olivier Awards and a BAFTA for her work in the film adaptation.

Beyond “Shirley Valentine,” Collins was also known for appearing in dozens of TV series including “Upstairs, Downstairs,” “Forever Green,” “The Ambassador,” “Mount Pleasant” and “Dickensian.” She also appeared in films including “City of Joy,” “Paradise Road” and “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger,” counting Patrick Swayze, Glenn Close, Frances McDormand, Antonio Banderas, Josh Brolin and Anthony Hopkins among her co-stars.

Throughout her decades-long screen career, Collins also continued her work in theater, including productions of “The Importance of Being Earnest,” “Woman in Mind” and “Cinderella.”

Collins, born in 1940, was raised near Liverpool by a schoolteacher mother and a headmaster father. She told The Times in 1989 that her dad “was one of the early feminists.”

“He had three daughters and always offered us everything that a boy would have — education and stuff,” she said. “[My parents] had a completely shared domestic situation, they both worked, cooked, did the washing. He even washed nappies [diapers] by hand.”

Her marriage to “Upstairs, Downstairs” co-star John Alderton — they married in 1969 — was not too different. “He just spent five months holding down the fort at home while I was on Broadway,” she recalled.

Alderton, 84, said Thursday that Collins’ “greatest performance was as my wife and mother to our beautiful children.”

While Collins was known for her scenic and romantic on-screen vacation to the Greek coast, she preferred a different kind of destination off-screen: St. Petersburg, Fla.

“It’s amazing, people think when you’re on your own you’re going off to have wonderful sexual adventures. Here I am, on my own, going off to Disney World,” she told The Times. “What does that say about me?”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

L.A. County supervisors want to bar “predatory” salespeople who they say prey on vulnerable residents seeking benefits from the region’s social services offices.

The supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to explore creating a “buffer zone” outside county offices, prohibiting certain types of “aggressive” solicitation toward people seeking food stamps and cash aid. County lawyers have two months to figure out what such a zone would look like.

The looming crackdown follows a Times investigation that found seven people who said recruiters outside a social services office in South Los Angeles paid them to sue the county over sex abuse. Two more later told The Times they, too, were solicited for sex abuse lawsuits outside a county social services office in Long Beach, though they initially believed they were being recruited to be extras in a movie.

“We are painfully aware of the ongoing allegations of fraud and the pay-to-sue tactics used to recruit clients and file lawsuits against the county,” said Supervisor Janice Hahn, who announced she would push for the buffer zone after the Times investigation. “There must be greater accountability both to protect survivors seeking justice and to ensure that fraudulent claims and predatory solicitation are stopped at their source.”

The county’s more than 40 social services offices act as one-stop shops for residents who need help applying for food, housing and cash assistance. Outside many of the larger offices in poorer areas, a bustling ecosystem thrives with vendors hawking goods and services to those in line.

The supervisors said Tuesday they were troubled by some of the offerings.

“Vendors asking for copies of people’s personal documents, trying to sell them products and even recruiting people into claims against the county — this behavior puts residents at real risk and undermines the trust in our public services,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she wanted to see reforms that would protect both taxpayers and “vulnerable individuals who are being used as pawns to line the pockets of many of these attorneys.”

The motion passed 3 to 0. Supervisors Hilda Solis and Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the social services office where some of the lawsuit recruitment took place, were absent.

The Times spent two weeks outside the South L.A. office this fall and watched vendors seek out dozens of people with Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance for low-income Californians. The vendors would pay them anywhere between $3 and $12 to undergo COVID and blood pressure tests, which they said would be billed to their state insurance. Some people said they routinely stopped by the location for quick cash.

Giveaways of free phones are also popular for those who are eligible through a government-subsidized program. Recipients have complained that the service on the phones was often short-lived, with some people returning to the kiosks within a few days after their number stopped working.

Leaders at the Department of Public Social Services, who oversee the offices, say they’re limited in what they can do outside their facilities. Many of the busiest locations are in Los Angeles or smaller cities, where the county has no authority. And regulating where vendors can go on public sidewalks has proved a reliable headache for local governments in the past.

Last year, the Los Angeles City Council eliminated the “no-vending zones” it had created in areas where it said street vendors would contribute to congestion. The ban was met with an outcry and a lawsuit from vendors who argued street vending had been decriminalized and the city could no longer outlaw the stands.

Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment professor and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said the county will have to be careful in defining what conduct is “predatory” and what is protected speech.

“The devil’s going to be in the details,” Volokh said. “Whenever you hear words like ‘predatory’ or ‘exploitative’ or ‘harassing’ or ‘bullying,’ you know you’re dealing with terms that are potentially very vague and often, by themselves, too vague to be legally usable terms.”

Nov. 3 (UPI) — The French government threatened to ban Chinese retailer Shein for selling a “childlike” sex doll online.

France’s consumer fraud agency got an anonymous tip about the dolls on the site. It said their “description and categorization on the site leave little doubt as to the child pornography nature of the content,” said a press release issued Saturday by the French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control.

One of the ads on Shein, first reported by Le Parisien newspaper, showed a life-size doll of a little girl wearing a white dress and holding a teddy bear. The description clearly states its intended use.

“This has crossed a line,” said France’s economy minister, Roland Lescure, said in an interview with French radio, adding that a formal investigation was underway, The New York Times reported. “These horrible objects are illegal.”

The company issued a statement saying it removed the items.

“We take this situation extremely seriously,” Quentin Ruffat, a spokesperson for Shein France, told BFMTV, a French TV channel. “This type of content is completely unacceptable and goes against all the values ​​we stand for. We are taking immediate corrective action and strengthening our internal mechanisms to prevent such a situation from happening again.”

Shein will soon open a store at BHV Marais, a department store in Paris. But in the wake of the doll discovery, employees have protested the move, and some French cosmetics and clothing brands have pulled their items from BHV Marais.

Société des Grands Magasins is the French company that is helping Shein move into the French market. It’s the parent company of BHV Marais. SGM President Frédéric Merlin said in an Instagram post that SGM “obviously condemns the recent events related to the doll controversy. Like everyone else, I expect clear answers from SHEIN.” But he said it hasn’t changed his plans. “I have decided not to reverse my decision, despite the controversy and the pressure because we’re doing things by the book, with ethics and transparency.”

The consumer fraud agency noted that the distribution, via an electronic communications network, of representations of a pedopornographic nature is punishable by sentences of up to seven years imprisonment and a fine of $115,000. The statement alleges that Shein doesn’t effectively filter out pornographic content to protect minors or vulnerable audiences.

For this, the law allows penalties of up to three years in prison and $86,000.