wouldnt

ATLANTA — Joe Biden says he did not know he had cancer while he was president and would not have sought a second term if he already had been diagnosed.

The former Democratic president’s comments came in an interview with People magazine before the release of his White House memoir on Tuesday.

“If I had known that I was feeling lousy because I had cancer,” said Biden, who turns 84 on Nov. 20, “I would’ve not gone forward” with a 2024 reelection bid that ended after a disastrous debate performance against Republican Donald Trump.

Biden was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer months after leaving office in 2025.

“I don’t think an 80-year-old man with cancer should be running” for president, Biden said in the interview.

Still, he argued that the June 2024 debate, less than five months before Election Day, was not a seismic event even if it accelerated Democrats’ concerns about his age — he was 81 at the time — and his ability to defeat Trump.

“First of all, I thought there’d be another debate, which there wasn’t,” Biden said. “But notwithstanding the fact that there wasn’t another debate, it didn’t disturb me because it wasn’t consequential.”

Within weeks, Biden announced he was ending his campaign and endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris, who secured the nomination and lost to Trump in the general election.

Biden insisted he was able to perform his duties while he was in office. He said age itself was not disqualifying and meant he had experience and deep personal relationships with world leaders.

“I believe that on an objective basis, I was the best-equipped person to do the job,” he said.

His son Hunter told the BBC in August that the cancer had spread and was causing his father pain. “It’s very painful and it’s very debilitating in many respects,” he said.

Since Joe Biden left office, his son has become a higher profile public presence, sparring with Republicans on social media, posting lengthy thoughts on the nation’s direction and launching his own cryptocurrency.

Joe Biden defended his son’s public persona and his decision to pardon Hunter Biden after the younger Biden’s 2024 conviction on federal felony gun charges and his guilty plea to federal tax charges. Hunter Biden also had faced years of scrutiny and withering Republican attacks over his international business dealings.

Hunter Biden has said the pardon damaged his father’s legacy, but the former president said Trump’s penchant for vengeance made it necessary.

“He goes after people without any basis, whether they’re viewed as an enemy. I knew what he would do,” Joe Biden said. “If I hadn’t pardoned — not just some of my family members, anyone who’s dealt with me — he would go back and try to do harm to them.”

Biden called his son “one of the brightest men I know,” adding, “I’m really proud of him.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

On the sidelines of this month’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, an unprecedented three-way meeting between United States President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin could take place.

“China is in communication with relevant parties regarding a meeting between the three heads of state,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters in Beijing on Wednesday.

“Work is under way to coordinate such a meeting,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday, adding: “We hope that it will be finalised in the coming days.”

Trump has said he is open to three-way talks focused on nuclear weapons. “If President Xi wants to have it, I’d have it,” he told reporters last month.

The three leaders have met separately but have never held formal talks together.

So could the meeting, pencilled in for November 18-19, actually happen, and what would it mean for the rest of the world? Here’s what we know:

What would Russia get out of a three-way meeting with the US and China?

At the very least, a photo opportunity.

“It is a big event,” Alexander Bratersky, a Moscow-based journalist and political analyst, told Al Jazeera.

He pointed to Pyotr Tolstoy, chairman of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, who he said has described the meeting as a path towards a new Yalta – the 1945 conference where the leaders of the Soviet Union, the US and the United Kingdom shaped the post-war order in Europe.

That allows Moscow to “talk big”, Bratersky said, while putting Ukraine on the sidelines.

Simply being at the table would make Putin “first among equals”, he added, giving him a photo opportunity to show the world that he will be among those deciding the future of Europe’s security architecture after the war in Ukraine.

If the meeting produced results, he said, it would reflect China’s influence on Russia.

“We should take into account that we are dealing with a much weaker US leader after elections,” Bratersky said.

Trump remains in charge of foreign policy, he explained, but will have less leverage if Democrats, who won control of both chambers of Congress in this week’s midterm elections, start sending money to Kyiv.

“A meeting by itself will be a success,” he said. “Putin will be able to sell it at home”.

Whether anything comes of it should become clear within a month or so, Bratersky said, and the meeting could lead to another during the Group of 20 (G20) summit in Miami in December.

If nothing is produced before Christmas, he added, “it will be just a photo op.”

What does Trump want?

Optics and leverage.

Trump wants “a personal, high-drama encounter” that lets him claim he is “dealing with” the other two great powers on his own terms, Inderjeet Parmar, a professor of international politics at City St George’s, University of London, told Al Jazeera.

A three-way meeting would allow Trump to present himself as “the indispensable deal-maker”, Parmar said, talking up potential deals on Ukraine, trade, energy or arms control.

“After the midterms the domestic political need for a foreign policy ‘win’ is real,” he said.

Any image of Trump sitting with Xi and Putin could be spun as evidence that American power still commands the table, he said, “even if the substance is limited or largely symbolic”.

“The domestic audience, and his eroding MAGA base, matters at least as much as the diplomatic one,” Parmar said.

What does China want?

Not a summit on Ukraine.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he raised the idea of discussing Ukraine with Xi when they met in Beijing on October 30, and could see the “surprise” on his face, Germany’s DPA news agency reported.

Steinmeier told public broadcaster ARD that Xi said the three presidents would probably meet in Shenzhen, but not to discuss Ukraine.

He said Xi explicitly pointed out that the Russia-Ukraine war is a European conflict in which the “Europeans must sit at the table”.

Beijing is also likely to swat away Trump’s push for nuclear talks.

Last month, China’s Foreign Ministry said it would be “neither fair, reasonable nor realistic to ask China to join the so-called trilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage”.

What would a meeting mean for the rest of the world?

Allies could be sidelined.

Parmar said a three-way meeting would mark “a clear break from the post-1945 pattern”, in which Washington coordinated closely with its European and Asian allies before engaging with Moscow or Beijing.

“A free-standing trilateral [meeting] risks treating those allies as secondary players whose interests can be managed after the fact,” he said, adding that those interests could even be traded.

That would be a shift towards “personalised great-power diplomacy”, he said. But the Trump administration still has hopes to drive a wedge between Russia and China, Parmar added.

Fears of a “G3” are “understandable but overstated in institutional terms”, he said, because the three capitals’ interests diverge sharply on Ukraine, Taiwan, technology and the rules of the international economy.

“The real risk is not a formal G3 secretariat, but the normalisation of great-power deals struck with little consultation of those most affected,” he said.

“History offers many examples of such moments. They rarely produce stable order and often leave the excluded feeling the costs,” Parmar said.

Courage in politics is rare.

It’s especially difficult and fraught for a politician such as Gavin Newsom, who has Oval Office ambitions and everything to lose from a misstep. Playing it safe is playing it smart.

On Thursday, Newsom took what can only be described as a courageous stand, a risky stand — commuting the death sentences of the 548 men and women condemned to die in California, and instead seeking to change their sentences to life without parole.

Many people will stop reading right now because honestly, do you care what happens to those on death row? They’ve raped, murdered, robbed, tortured — you name the heinous crime, one of them has done it. They are not the most sympathetic lot, and in truth many of us have ambivalent feelings on the death penalty.

It’s that ambivalence, that uncertainty, that makes Newsom’s move so interesting. We are in the most unlikely of moments — witnessing a self-inflicted test of political endurance from a savvy politician who didn’t need to go there. What happens in these strange days when a presidential hopeful takes an unnecessary risk simply because he believes it’s the right thing to do?

Newsom will be roasted by those claiming to be tough-on-crime types. They predictably will cry that he is circumventing the will of the people and disrespecting crime victims and juries. Some will say he cares more about criminals than victims. Fox News is going to have a field day.

Newsom has publicly pondered this decision for some time, calling it a “rocking chair” choice, one he’s likely to look back on someday to judge whether he lived up to his own ideals. He has said he is morally opposed to the state killing to prove killing is bad. As he terms out of office, he had only a couple of months left to take action on that belief before the power to end the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere slips out of his hands.

“Faithfulness to our values is measured by how we act when it’s most difficult to uphold them,” Newsom wrote in a letter to Californians announcing his decision. This, he said, was one of those moments for him.

“Americans are looking for leadership that is more principled,” civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson told me, arguing Newsom’s move is actually in sync with the electorate. Stevenson is one of the people Newsom has talked to about the death penalty, and the founder of the Legacy Museum in Alabama, which traces the line from slavery to mass incarceration.

The shocking blue-wave midterms showed that Americans aren’t just tired of cruelty for cruelty’s sake, he said. They are tired of injustice, tired of selfish, self-serving leaders, tired of fearing that their own government might crush them simply because it can.

Across the country, voters elected political leaders who stood for something — who bucked the trends to run on their values and vision of a better America, even if it wasn’t mainstream or safe.

So whether Americans agree with Newsom’s decision to commute these sentences to life without parole or not, voters are at a moment when I suspect, as Stevenson does, that they may embrace his courage to stand for something, even if they don’t agree with what that something is.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of that power of government to crush. Support for it has been mixed for years, even among liberals — though young people are less likely to back it. It has been banned in nearly every Western democracy including almost all of Europe, Canada and New Zealand.

Twenty-seven U.S. states either have abolished it or have gubernatorial moratoriums on it (Newsom enacted one in California a few years ago). And President Biden commuted the death sentences of most federal inmates in his final days of office, as have several other governors over the years.

There also has been a growing understanding in the U.S. that race bias is baked into how we use the death penalty. Black and brown people make up the majority of those on death row, and crimes in which the victim is white are more likely to draw the death sentence — even when we get it wrong.

More than 200 people on death row have been exonerated across the United States since the 1970s — including eight in California — meaning that for every eight people we have put to death, there has been one other who was going to be killed by the state until we figured out they were innocent.

So while there’s a moral argument to be made against the state killing people to prove killing people is wrong, there’s also a practical one: It turns out we’re really bad at imposing a lethal sentence fairly, or even correctly.

Vicente Benavides Figueroa is proof of that. After 25 years on death row, the justice system finally realized it had made a terrible error in his conviction. Figueroa wasn’t just railroaded into a lethal sentence — for the murder, rape and sodomy of a toddler — the crime itself likely never actually happened.

Figueroa was a seasonal farmworker, a Mexican immigrant with less than a high school education, who was watching his girlfriend’s kids in the Central Valley in 1991 when he lost track of the youngest, Consuelo, for 15 minutes. When he found her, she was in the front yard, unresponsive and vomiting.

One thing led to another — a “reckless” investigation, as his civil attorney Salomon Zavala, describes it; faulty translators; a mostly white jury who werefar from his peers; and erroneous medical testimony — and Figueroa was convicted. The machine of justice was so grinding that Figueroa did not understand he had been sentenced to death until he got to San Quentin.

Decades later, the doctors who claimed Consuelo was raped and sodomized would realize the injuries were likely because of trauma from medical workers attempting to insert an adult-sized catheter. They recanted. New experts, hired by the defense, theorized the child had been hit by a car, causing the extensive internal injuries that killed her. The witnesses now agreed the child never had been raped or sodomized.

Figueroa’s conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2018, citing false evidence in the original trial.

“No matter what your moral position is on the death penalty, I think we have to look at it from a standpoint of institutional responsibility,” Zavala, the lawyer, told me. “We have to really think about whether we, as a society, are comfortable with executing someone that could potentially be innocent.”

I’m of the mind that erroneously killing one person in the name of justice is one too many — that the death penalty is an unacceptable risk.

I take nothing away from, nor mean to diminish, the importance or pain of any victim, their story or their point of view. Their pain is real and enduring, and surely there will be some who feel Newsom’s decision robs them of some sort of final resolution.

But pain cannot define justice.

It’s easy to forget that Newsom is married to a survivor of violent crime, and knows as well as anyone how complicated and difficult and personal the journey to recovery is, and how that suffering affects not just victims, but also families and communities.

But whether or not the state should be in the business of killing has to be a bigger decision that we consider collectively in moments when we are not in distress.

Newsom’s decision does that, seeking to go beyond “these performative sentences that just represent a lot of fear and anger,” Stevenson said, and move our justice system toward one that lives up to the ideal of promoting safety and fairness over vengeance. And even then, the state Supreme Court will have a say in the majority of these clemencies, since Newsom needs their approval in cases where there are repeat felonies.

But it’s a can of worms he didn’t have to open — the clearest statement we’ll ever get of who Newsom is as a leader.

And it’s a welcome reminder that sometimes, occasionally, values still have a place in politics.

The Cotswolds village is often nicknamed the prettiest village in England, but it’s becoming increasingly busy

Castle Combe is frequently hailed as one of the most beautiful villages in England, boasting honey-coloured cottages, a centuries-old stone bridge and winding lanes that appear to have stood still in time. Nestled in Wiltshire on the southern edge of the Cotswolds, it has grown into a hugely popular destination for visitors hoping to soak up the charm of a quintessentially English village.

Yet despite its undeniable beauty, I discovered that the reality of a visit was rather different from the picture-perfect scenes that have made it so famous. Even on what I anticipated would be a quiet morning, there’s little question that this is gradually becoming one of the most crowded villages in the Cotswolds.

Visiting the village

Castle Combe is a historic Wiltshire village long dubbed the prettiest in England. Its reputation stretches back decades, with its traditional stone houses, old-fashioned windows, and flower-filled gardens conjuring up the kind of setting you’d expect to see in a period drama.

However, that very same charm is precisely what draws so many visitors to the village. What ought to feel like a tranquil stroll through a historic setting can instead leave you feeling as though you’re wandering through a film set.

Having visited numerous times over the years, whether passing through on short walks or staying at nearby hotels, it’s clear the crowds are growing with every visit.

It also got me thinking about the village’s residents, particularly those living in the stunning cottages overlooking the stone bridge. Castle Combe’s own visitor guidance urges people to be respectful of residents’ privacy, and to refrain from photographing homes or obstructing roads and gateways.

Parking

Parking is another potential headache if you’re not local. The village’s narrow, historic streets were never built to accommodate heavy volumes of traffic, and parking in the centre is extremely limited.

Visitors are directed to the designated car park at Dunns Lane, from where it’s a short walk down into the village. Parking right in the heart of the village isn’t a realistic option for most visitors, and spaces can fill up quickly during the summer months.

Things to do

Castle Combe is undeniably picturesque and a joy to stroll through, but it is also incredibly compact. Unlike other Cotswold villages, there is no bustling high street lined with independent shops to explore.

The key attractions include the historic Market Cross, St Andrew’s Church, the stone bridge spanning the By Brook and the charming cottages lining the village street.

You can take a leisurely wander, admiring the architecture, grab a bite to eat and explore the surrounding footpaths, though a couple of hours is really all you need.

Is it worth visiting?

Castle Combe is the kind of village that feels truly unique in England. It’s a place that draws a great many visitors, yet it doesn’t always deliver the most satisfying experience.

If you’re already making your way through the Cotswolds, a brief stop to take in the village could be worthwhile — but it wouldn’t justify a dedicated trip on its own.

PETER Andre has revealed he refused to let his adult son Junior share a bedroom with girlfriend Jasmine at the family home — and even banned them from closing the door.

The Mysterious Girl singer admitted he enforced the strict rules when Junior, now 21, first started dating Jasmine, despite his son already being around 18 or 19.

Speaking on his new podcast, At Home With The Andres, alongside wife Dr Emily Andre, Peter explained that he wanted to set an example for his younger children.

He said: “Junior, even now he’s with his partner, yeah, that’s different. He’s with Jasmine and they’re really happy. They live together, it’s different.”

The dad-of-five continued: “When they come over together, they stay together. But when they got together, with Jasmine, it was like, no, you’re not sharing a room. And he’s an adult, he’s like 19 or 18, and I’m like, no, no, you guys can sit up there and watch TV, doors open. They must’ve thought we were…”

Emily backed her husband, saying: “I actually think a lot of parents would relate to that.”

INSIDE MAN

Katie Price’s ex Lee Andrews claims he ‘dined with royals and murderers’ in jail

PRICELESS

Gogglebox star is unrecognisable dressed as Katie Price for Halloween

Explaining his reasoning, Peter added: “And it was because I didn’t want Millie and Theo to be thinking that it’s just normal for someone to just have someone in their room with the door shut. And then what happens if that relationship doesn’t work out?”

He continued: “Well then the next person, and then where does it stop? So I’m glad that we put those rules in.”

Emily agreed, saying: “As a parent, you can only do what feels like the right thing at the time.”

She added: “I do think that was the right thing at the time, especially with the younger kids in the house. But, you know, everyone’s got different rules, but I think a lot of parents will relate to that. Definitely.”

The couple’s new podcast offers listeners a glimpse behind the scenes of their family life, with the pair discussing everything from parenting dilemmas to marriage and their very different careers.

Peter and Emily tied the knot in 2015 and share children Amelia, Theo and Arabella, while the singer is also dad to Junior and Princess from his previous marriage to Katie Price.

EXCLUSIVE: Luke Tweddle returned to Surrey four months ago after enjoying three years living in different parts of Australia and he has now spoken about the biggest differences he discovered

A young man who is back the UK after three unforgettable years in Australia has revealed the one reason he would not return Down Under on a permanent basis. Luke Tweddle, who is from Surrey, spent time in Adelaide and Sydney before house-sharing in Perth with his girlfriend where he enjoyed considerably higher wages than in the UK — while also being within walking distance to sandy beaches.

However, the 26-year-old moved back home to England four months ago. Asked whether he would ever consider living in Australia permanently, he replied with one understandable reason for remaining in his home country. He explained: “The benefit for me of living in the UK is being back around friends and family. If you were asking me, which country do you prefer? Australia actually wins hands down, but being there long-term can start to feel isolating.” He added: “We don’t currently plan to move back to Australia, but would definitely love to visit again to see anywhere we missed off.”

Luke said he had been enjoying the UK again and that despite describing Australia as “amazing”, it had become “very normal” to him, and therefore being here has felt like a fresh start.

Being closer to friends and family has also been invaluable and although he could have become sponsored to stay in Australia when his visa expired after three years, he and his girlfriend were “fairly happy” to call time on a remarkable adventure.

What Luke’s noticed after three years away

And questioned whether anything surprised him about being back in the UK, he said there were “multiple things”. He explained: “Firstly the fact that literally nothing had changed. The fact that I could be away for so long and do and see so much, yet you return and people are still going to the exact same job as the day you left, was definitely a strange feeling. Also the UK felt very busy, and town centres felt noticeably run down compared to Australia.

“Transport prices as well have been another thing that’s surprised me. They’re so expensive. And being away, I missed being around friends and family and I especially missed out on big events [which] could be difficult.”

Luke used to spend just £5 a day to use trains in Perth, but he previously revealed on his YouTube channel that he would “genuinely never get over” how expensive pints of beer were. However, as for rent, food shops and coffee outings, he said prices were similar to what he was used to at home.

Three things he misses from Australia

Laughing, he said he missed Australian wages, which he said were much better than in the UK and in New Zealand where he briefly lived too during his travels. He previously calculated that an average worker in Australia could save around £12,000 more annually compared to here where the average monthly take-home salary is £2,500.

Make sure our newest stories always feature at the top of your Google Search by setting us as a Preferred Source. Click here to enable or designate us as Preferred Source in your Google search preferences.

Luke said he missed being surrounded by nature constantly and the beach on his doorstep was also something that now feels a long way away.

However, as for the comparisons that now stand out the most, he concluded: “Australia is very modern, clean and well kept whereas the UK feels a lot more rundown and neglected.

“Also the culture, I found Australian culture very positive and Aussies have tremendous love for their country. Whereas the UK typically has a much more negative, complaining type culture with not much positivity towards the country.”