undermine

Premier League gambling: Betting ads undermine reduction pledge

“This level of gambling advertising during the Premier League’s first weekend is frankly astonishing,” said Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, chair of the Gambling Reform All Party Parliamentary Group.

“The industry claimed it was taking steps to self-regulate and reduce advertising, but yet again they have not kept to their word. The whistle-to-whistle ban is far too limited and is ineffective.”

Overall, there were 27,440 gambling messages measured across the entire opening weekend, a slight decrease from last year but still more than triple the tally from 2023.

The total is found by adding together every individual instance of gambling messaging from live match coverage, plus output on TalkSport, Sky Sports News and some social media channels.

There have been growing calls for a ban on gambling advertising, akin to the 2002 ban on tobacco promotion, and in 2023 the Gambling Commission recommended the government should limit the amount and frequency of gambling ads promoted within elite sports venues.

Lord Foster of Bath, chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, said: “The government must simply step in to reduce people’s and particularly children’s exposure to gambling advertising that we know can lead to harm. The government has all the powers it needs to protect people and it must do so now.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport told the BBC: “The government recognises that more work needs to be done to ensure that gambling advertising is appropriate, responsible, and does not exacerbate harm.

“We are consulting a wide range of evidence to inform our next steps in this space and working with industry to further raise standards.”

The Premier League did not provide a comment.

Source link

Lionesses: ‘Online abuse may undermine female sport participation’

In a letter seen by BBC Sport, Boardman warned: “This behaviour is abhorrent and unacceptable in any context, but it is especially disheartening given the progress we have made in championing women and girls in sport.

“Through Sport England and National Lottery investment, we have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to increase participation, visibility and opportunity for women and girls in sport.”

In October 2023, the Online Safety Act became law, ensuring social media platforms have a duty to protect users from content such as racism, with Ofcom responsible for enforcing the legislation, and developing codes of practice to guide tech companies. However, some anti-racism campaigners believe there needs to be more urgency.

“The Online Safety Act 2023 provides a framework to address illegal and harmful content, including hate speech and misogynistic abuse,” wrote Boardman.

“We are particularly interested in how the new codes can be used to address the kind of targeted abuse we are seeing. We understand that Ofcom has also issued draft guidance on improving online safety for women and girls, and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss how these measures can be strengthened and enforced.

“For too long, internet trolls have been given free rein by the big tech companies to spread bile and misery, and this cannot be allowed to continue.

“Could you please advise what further steps can be taken within the current regulatory framework to tackle misogyny and racism online?”

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC Sport that social media companies and Ofcom “need to do more”.

“I think the act will continue to be tested every time a problem surfaces and it’s incumbent on those such as Ofcom and social media platforms to be proactive in rooting this out,” she said.

“We brought in the Online Harms Act this year to make sure there are sanctions for companies that don’t take this content down and we are doing a lot of work in schools to educate young people about the impact of online abuse but it’s incumbent on all of us to call this out.

“It’s absolutely disgraceful what [Jess Carter] has had to put up with and we are completely behind her and the Lionesses.”

Ofcom has been approached for comment.

Source link

Contributor: By wearing masks, immigration agents undermine authority and endanger us all

On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by several masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in Manhattan as he attempted to steer an individual past immigration authorities. That same day, masked agents outside a Walmart in Pico Rivera detained two individuals — one a target of immigration enforcement, the other a U.S. citizen who tried to intervene.

These two scenes from opposite sides of the country illustrate what has become a more common problem: federal agents wearing masks to avoid recognition. On Thursday, masked individuals said to be affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security descended on a Home Depot in Hollywood and on Dodger Stadium.

Masking is not good law enforcement practice. It may contradict Homeland Security regulations, while potentially providing cover for some officers to violate constitutional and civil rights. It undermines agents’ authority and endangers public safety as well.

The federal government has no specific policy banning immigration agents from wearing masks. But the fact that such practice is not illegal does not make it acceptable. Department of Homeland Security regulations require immigration officers to identify themselves during an arrest or, in cases of a warrantless arrest, provide a statement explaining how they identified themselves. The use of masks seems to violate the intent of these directives for identification.

ICE agents in masks are becoming disturbingly routine. There were ICE agents in masks at the Los Angeles immigration protests recently, just as there have been at enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Boston, Phoenix and across the country. In March a video of Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, being detained by masked officers on the street went viral.

There seems to be no uniformity in the face coverings immigration agents wear, which has included ski masks, surgical masks, balaclavas and sunglasses. Such inconsistency across a federal workforce flies in the face of sound policing. Masked agents can confuse both bystanders and ICE targets, which risks people interfering with enforcement actions that look more like kidnappings. The International Assn. of Chiefs of Police has warned that the public “may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.”

Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, said earlier this month that immigration agents wear masks to protect themselves. “I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks,” he said, “but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”

Yet law enforcement jobs come with an assumption of exactly that risk. Consider that the overwhelming majority of police officers, sheriffs and FBI agents fulfill their duties without concealing their faces. Correction officers who deal with prisoners do not wear masks, nor do judges who administer our laws. Because these public employees have such tremendous power, their roles require full transparency.

Besides, ICE agents are increasingly targeting noncriminals, which mitigates the argument that agents require masks for safety. According to the research site Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, about 44% of people in ICE detention as of June 1 have no criminal record.

When ICE agents wear masks, there can be unintended consequences. Lately, there has been a spike in people impersonating agents and engaging in harassment, assault and violence. In April, a Florida woman wore a mask as she posed as an ICE agent and attempted to kidnap her ex-boyfriend’s wife.

Ironically, the Trump administration has a double standard around the idea of people wearing masks. It has demanded that universities bar students from wearing masks during protests. In the aftermath of the Los Angeles immigration protests, the president posted on social media, “From now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.” Shouldn’t that principle be applied to both sides?

True, it makes sense for immigration agents to use face coverings when they are making arrests of a high-profile target or conducting an undercover operation. However, masking should be the exception, not the norm. If ICE agents are conducting their duties anonymously, they open the door to potential civil rights and due process violations. The practice gives impunity to agents to make unlawful arrests, without the possibility of public accountability.

Masking can also be seen as a show of intimidation by immigration agents — whether their target is an undocumented migrant or an American citizen, like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested outside a New Jersey detention facility in May. Masked ICE agents give the impression of being a secret police force, which is not good for our democracy.

Last week, two Democratic lawmakers in California introduced a bill that would bar local, state and federal law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks on duty (with certain exceptions). Although this is a step in the right direction, it remains unclear whether such a state measure could be applied to federal agents. Congress should ban the use of masks by immigration agents.

ICE officers should not be allowed to conceal their faces. The public’s need for accountability strongly outweighs any rationale for agents’ anonymity.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1



Source link