thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-08--Keir Starmer Labour Leadership Boost As He Wins Backing Of Most MPs And Unison

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Keir Starmer’s hopes of becoming Labour’s next leader have received a double boost after he was backed by Britain’s biggest union and a tranche of MPs.
The shadow Brexit secretary secured more nominations from MPs than any other rival in the race to become Labour’s next leader and has already passed the parliamentary hurdle needed to make it onto the ballot.
Advertisement
He surged into the lead among his Commons colleagues with 23 MPs backing him. Rebecca Long Bailey is in second place with the support of 7 MPs. Jess Phillips has the support of 6 MPs.
But Starmer also won the hugely significant support of Unison, the union that represents 1.3 million NHS and other public sector staff.
With candidates needing at least two trade unions and 5% of affiliated members, Unison’s endorsement means that he will almost certainly become the first contender to get on the leadership ballot.
General secretary Dave Prentis said: “We believe – if elected by the membership – Keir Starmer would be a leader to bring the party together and win back the trust of the thousands of voters who deserted Labour last month.
Advertisement
“Unions created the Labour Party to give working people a voice in Westminster. But it can only achieve for them, their families, their communities and the country’s public services when in government. Keir has a clear vision to get Labour back to the winning ways of the past.”
Starmer said: “I want to lead a Labour party that will stand side-by-side with trade unionists.”
With just five days left until nominations close, contenders have to win the support of 22 MPs to go through the first stage of the process to get on the ballot to succeed Jeremy Corbyn. There are 202 Labour MPs.
Lisa Nandy, who impressed backbenchers with her pitch at the first leadership hustings in front of MPs on Tuesday night, has the backing of 2 MPs.
Emily Thornberry has received the backing of 1 MP. Clive Lewis has not received the vote of any MPs so far.
Under party rules, once the required 22 MPs have been secured, leadership contenders then need to win 5% of local party nominations or 5% of party affiliates such as trade unions or socialist societies. At least two unions plus one affiliate are needed.
Advertisement
The contest will end on April 2, with the winner announced two days later.
List of nominations Rebecca Long-Bailey
Paula Barker Apsana Begum Kim Johnson Navendu Mishra Angela Rayner Zarah Sultana Mick Whitley Lisa Nandy Rosie Cooper Yvonne Fovargue
Jess Phillips
Tonia Antoniazzi Neil Coyle Julie Elliott Holly Lynch Siobhan McDonagh Wes Streeting
Keir Starmer
Debbie Abrahams Tracy Brabin Ben Bradshaw Bambos Charalambous Judith Cummins Alex Cunningham Janet Daby Thangam Debbonaire Stephen Doughty Clive Efford Preet Gill Emma Hardy Carolyn Harris Sarah Jones David Lammy Chris Matheson Kerry McCarthy Stephen Morgan Marie Rimmer Nick Smith Bill Esterson Jo Stevens Daniel Zeichner
Emily Thornberry
Fabian Hamilton
Last night the six candidates set out their stalls in parliament. Addressing the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), Long-Bailey said that in losing the election, Labour “let down the people who rely on us”.
Earlier, the frontbencher insisted that she was not the “continuity candidate” to replace Corbyn, but gave him a “10 out of 10 rating” – describing him as “one of the most honest, kind, principled politicians I’ve ever met”.
Starmer told the hustings that the party needs to “win back our heartlands” and had “a mountain to climb”.
Phillips told the hustings she does not want to be the next leader of the opposition, but rather “the next Labour prime minister – I want the people here to be in government”.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-08--How Jeremy Bamber Still Denies The White House Farm Murders 35 Years On

How Verizon Media and our partners bring you better ad experiences To give you a better overall experience , we @ @ @ @ @ that are more useful to you .
For example , when you search for a @ @ @ @ @ search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you .
We also @ @ @ @ @ you ads for similar films you may like in the future .
Like Verizon Media @ @ @ @ @ show you ads that they think match your interests .
Learn more about how Verizon @ @ @ @ @ and how our partners collect and use data .
HuffPost is part of Verizon Media @ @ @ @ @ partners need your consent to access your device and use your data ( including location @ @ @ @ @ , and provide and measure personalised ads .
Verizon Media will also provide you with @ @ @ @ @ .
Learn more .
Select 'OK ' to continue and allow Verizon Media and our @ @ @ @ @ , or select 'Manage options ' to view your choices .

Pain etched across his features, Jeremy Bamber looked close to collapse at the funeral of his adoptive parents and sister.
Clutching the hand of his girlfriend Julie Mugford, clad in a chic black mourning veil, it was impossible to view the then 24-year-old as anything but a man crushed with grief.
Advertisement
On August 7, 1985, June and Neville Bamber, both 61, had been shot dead in the family farmhouse in Essex. Their six-year-old grandsons Daniel and Nicholas had been murdered in their beds – apparently by their mother, Jeremy’s sister, Sheila “Bambi” Cafell. Police said the 26-year-old then took her own life.
An aerial view of White House Farm in Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex Ted Blackbrow/ANL/Shutterstock
The farm house was locked from the inside, so the possibility of an intruder was immediately eliminated. Sheila, who had mental health problems and had stopped taking the medication she had been prescribed for schizophrenia, was found dead, with the gun still in her hands and a bible balanced on her chest.
Jeremy said he had received a frenzied phone call from his father on the night of the tragedy, telling him to fetch help because Sheila had gone “berserk” with a gun.
Advertisement
Tabloids picked over details of Sheila’s life, depicting her as “drug-crazed”, and her brother as a handsome man suffering under the weight of a terrible loss. Press coverage of the funeral, including the now iconic image of Jeremy breaking down in tears outside the church, plastered the media.
Jeremy, who stood to inherit nearly £500,000 after the deaths, fed the tabloid appetite by dining out in fancy restaurants and taking holidays in the south of France.
Freddie Fox and Alexa Davies as Jeremy Bamber and Julie Mugford ITV
But nine weeks after the deaths, and immediately after his return from one of his European sojourns, Jeremy was arrested on suspicion of the murders. Within 14 months he had been charged and convicted of killing his own parents, sister and nephews, with the judge describing him as “evil, almost beyond belief”.
Jeremy is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole and is one of the few prisoners in the UK subject to a whole-life order. His conviction has been the subject of several appeals and reviews.
Advertisement
Now ITV’s dramatisation of the tragedy – White House Farm – will examine how botched police work and the stigmatisation of a treatable mental health condition almost led to a murderer slipping free. Lawyers for Bamber had asked ITV to postpone the series in light of a current legal challenge, but this was refused by the broadcaster.
Freddie Fox takes the role of Jeremy Bamber, with Cressida Bonas playing his sister Sheila. Her former husband and father of her twin boys Colin Caffell is portrayed by Mark Stanley and Mark Addy is Detective Sergeant Stan Jones, an officer who pursued the truth even in the face of opposition from his seniors. The courtroom scenes were filmed at Chelmsford Crown Court, where Bamber was convicted.
Police initially believed the murders had been carried out by Sheila 'Bambi' Caffell, Jeremy's sister ANL/Shutterstock
Ahead of the show, Fox said: “I cannot and would not give an opinion on whether I feel Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent. It is not my place to do that, but obviously he is a psychologically interesting person who is both articulate, well-spoken, well-educated, determined and, quite possibly, manipulative. It was a very interesting balance to strike.”
Director Paul Whittington said: “One of the big things for me in telling this story was to understand the attitude towards mental illness at that time and how that can still inform attitudes today. A lack of understanding about mental health was definitely part of the flaws of the initial investigation.
Advertisement
“It’s important for Sheila’s ex-husband and father of their twin boys Colin Caffell, who has been very supportive of this project, that we see Sheila as a wonderful mother as well as someone who suffered from mental illness. The portrayal of Sheila is one of the most important things about this drama.”
Colin Caffell, who was heavily involved in the project and wrote his own account of the tragedy in his book In Search of The Rainbow’s End, said: “Sheila was a passionate young woman, hungry for loving affirmation, but with no real concept of how beautiful she actually was. Before she was diagnosed and medicated she could be explosive as a way of dealing with her frustration.
Colin Caffell with his twins, who were murdered in their beds ITV
“But she was only ever destructive towards inanimate objects, breaking things in order to cause a reaction in others, usually me. As a mother of twins, she was always kind and loving, playful like a lioness with her cubs, never, ever angry with them.
“People forget the details of this case but so many have stuck in their mind that Sheila was a drug addict. She was not a drug addict. Sheila was very subdued by her prescribed medication.”
Advertisement
Indeed Detective Sergeant Stan Jones, played by Addy, held doubts about the murder-suicide theory from the start.
Addy said: “Mental illness was viewed very differently in the 1980s. People knew relatively little about it, so you could see how people would initially have accepted she must have gone ‘crazy’ and carried out the murders. She was a troubled soul but not a killer.”
Caffell added: “It reminds the viewer of the brutality of the whole thing. And the fact that Sheila, a slip of a girl at 5ft 7ins, couldn’t overcome Nevill Bamber, a man who was six foot four, an active farmer who lifted bales. There was no way Sheila could have achieved that… She had never picked up a rifle in her life and certainly never knew how to fire one or reload one.”
The murder-suicide theory – backed by the phone call Jeremy claimed he received from his father on the night of the deaths – meant police didn’t think there was a crime scene to keep intact and as a result, people were walking through the house and through the blood immediately after the murders at a time when forensics were a relatively new tool.
Mark Addy as DS Stan Jones ITV
Advertisement
Gemma Whelan, who plays Jeremy’s cousin Ann Eaton, said: “There was a bloody-minded attitude that the police felt certain they knew what had happened and wanted to close the case as soon as they could to move on from the media spotlight.”
The turning point came when Jeremy’s girlfriend Julie Mugford, played by Alexa Davies, finally cracked and told police that her lover had planned and executed the murders.
Jeremy’s arrest followed soon afterwards.
His case has since been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Jeremy’s legal team at Quality Solicitors Jordans described the current case for appeal as “complex”, but said if successful it “would be one of the UK’s most notorious miscarriages of justice”.
In October the Mirror carried a story about a telephone note that referring to a call made by Jeremy on the night of the killings, allegedly showing he was not at the scene at the time.
Advertisement
Jeremy Bamber arriving at the Court of Appeal in London in 2002 PA Archive/PA Images
Jeremy had argued two calls were made to police on the night of the murders, one from himself and another from his father, but the prosecution at his trial had alleged there was only one which was made by Jeremy at 3.26am from the scene.
The new note is said to refer to a call, timed at “approximately 3.37am”, from Jeremy.
His legal team argue it shows Jeremy could not have made a 3.26am call from the farm and returned to his home 3.5 miles away in Goldhanger to make the second call, the newspaper said.
Bamber found the note among thousands of police documents released to him in 2011. It is reported the note states: “We received a telephone call at the P.Stn (Police Station, Witham).
“The officer (PC West) at CD Control (Chelmsford) was on the phone and told us that he was relating information to us and still had the informant (Jeremy Bamber) on the other telephone.”
Advertisement
The legal team suggests the new note could support an alternative theory that Sheila carried out the murders before taking her own life.
Jeremy has said his father called him and said Sheila had “gone crazy”.
The jury at his Chelmsford Crown Court trial were directed to disregard Jeremy’s claims that he had called police from his home.
Cressida Bonas as Sheila Caffell ITV
The note is said to come from an interview with a PC Myall, of Essex Police, during the Dickinson Inquiry into the force’s handling of the case.
Last month Jeremy’s legal team confirmed that judicial review proceedings had been issued against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over “serious non-disclosure which our client says have occurred”.
Advertisement
A statement from Quality Solicitors Jordans said: “We have been engaged in an extensive dialogue with the CPS for some time as our investigation in conjunction with the team supporting this case has uncovered what appears to be significant evidence pointing to the fact that there has been a miscarriage of justice. However, in order that we can progress this case further, essential further disclosure is required which has been set out to the CPS in precise terms.
“It is disappointing that the CPS has chosen not to engage with that process and accordingly there is no alternative but to pursue that judicial review, particularly in circumstances where it appears that this may demonstrate that a misleading position was placed before the jury in relation to the forensic evidence.”
Fox has described Bamber as a 'psychologically interesting person who is both articulate, well-spoken, well-educated, determined and, quite possibly, manipulative' ITV
The solicitors’ statement added: “We do not propose to comment further upon the matter whist judicial review proceedings are underway. We are aware that this case gives rise to huge media interest, but we would recommend caution whilst proceedings are underway in view of the consequences to this litigation and any future appeal.”
Indeed, Jeremy’s legal team had asked for the programme to be postponed, though not cancelled.
They said: “This arises in the context of an ongoing and very active process to seek the return of the case of Jeremy Bamber back to the Court of Appeal, including importantly judicial review proceedings which have been issued against the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to serious non-disclosure which our client says have occurred.
Advertisement
“As a result of this, we have written to the producers of the drama series and invited them to postpone the broadcast of this series whilst matters are resolved in the High Court. We have intimated that we are concerned that such a drama series by nature will place a fictitious narrative in the public domain which may be counter-productive to the administration of justice in due course.”
A spokesperson for Essex Police said: “Jeremy Bamber’s conviction for killing five people, including two children, has been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission over a number of years.
“These processes, including a number of Essex Police internal reviews, have never found anything to suggest that Bamber was wrongly convicted of these murders 35 years ago.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Miriam Margolyes' Sweary Account Of Her Meeting The Queen On This Morning Is TV Gold

The ITV show kicked off the new year by introducing a brand new competition, but things didn’t go quite according to plan.
The programme has been extended by half an hour and as part of the new look, Holy and Phil were tasked with giving away a holiday to one lucky viewer.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Women In Hollywood Are Getting More Roles — If They're White

LOADING ERROR LOADING
On-screen representation for women in Hollywood has improved steadily over the last few years — but not all progress is equal, a new study has proved.
The number of female characters in box office hits reached a “recent historic high” in 2019, with 40 of the year’s top 100 highest-grossing films featuring female protagonists, according to It’s A Man’s (Celluloid) World, released on Wednesday by San Diego State University’s Center For the Study of Women in Television and Film.
Advertisement
However, the annual study found that most of those gains went to white women.
Among all of the female characters in the films analysed in the study, 68% of them were white. White women made up an even higher percentage — 70% — of “major” characters, which the study defined as appearing “in more than one scene and are instrumental to the action of the story”.
Representation for some women of colour decreased slightly from 2018. For example, the percentage of Black female characters declined to 20% in 2019 from 21% the year earlier, according to the study.
The percentage of characters who were Asian women decreased to 7%, the same as in 2017. The number had risen to 10% in 2018 — but as the study noted, those gains “were due largely to one film”: the blockbuster rom-com Crazy Rich Asians, the first major studio movie in 25 years to feature a majority-Asian cast.
The cast of Crazy Rich Asians pictured together in 2018 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
Advertisement
Latina representation increased slightly, to 5% in 2019 from 4% the year earlier, the study found.
Movies released by mainstream studios, the researchers pointed out, showed particular gains in the number of female roles.
Still, the study showed persistent problems across the board. For example, the ages of characters for female performers still trend younger than those for men, as “female characters experience a precipitous drop from their 30s to their 40s, and few women age into their 60s”, the study said.
In addition, many roles for women still focus on their personal lives, like marriage or children, rather than their professional lives. By contrast, men on-screen were more likely to be depicted “in primarily work-related roles” and “have an identifiable occupation”, according to the research.
And the results show Hollywood is still nowhere near gender parity. “Overall, audiences were almost twice as likely to see male characters as female characters in the top-grossing films of 2019”, the authors noted.
The study also adds to research that shows a correlation between on-screen and behind-the-scenes representation. When women are hired in positions of power, like producing, directing, and writing, they are more likely to create movies with women in prominent roles on-screen.
Advertisement
The stars of Little Women, including Laura Dern and Saoirse Ronan Taylor Hill via Getty Images
A study of female directors released last week by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative found that the percentage of women directing major Hollywood films rose significantly in 2019. Yet the report stressed that progress for women of colour in the director’s chair has been slower than it has been for their white counterparts.
The uneven progress on Hollywood representation has also been reflected at the top of the movie industry. Major awards like the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs (the U.K.’s equivalent of the Oscars), and the Directors Guild of America awards all failed to nominate any women for their top directing prizes this year, despite a number of worthy contenders. Some Oscar prognosticators are predicting a similar result when the Academy Awards nominations are unveiled on Monday.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--The Testimony That Could Seal Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction

The trial against Harvey Weinstein began on Monday and while the disgraced media mogul is facing charges of sexually assaulting two women, his potential conviction could hinge on the statements of three others who say he sexually abused them, too.
The three women have not been publicly identified, and their allegations involving rape and two incidents of forced oral sex are not part of the criminal charges. They will be allowed to testify in the trial, however, due to the Molineaux Rule, which says that other accusations can be used to establish, among other things, a pattern to an offender’s criminal behaviour. That means their testimony could be pivotal to the prosecutors’ case that Weinstein was a predator ― an allegation he has denied.
Advertisement
“It’s harder for defence attorneys to discredit victims when the case is a matter of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.”
In the Me Too era, legal experts and advocates for women hope to see more accusers testify as witnesses in sexual assault trials, which are notoriously unfair towards victims. Survivors are often victim-blamed by defence attorneys who perpetuate the myths that survivors can only be credible if they immediately go to police after being assaulted, cut off contact with their abusers, and have physical proof of the assault. At the Weinstein trial, his attorneys will likely use emails from his accusers asking to see him again or saying “I love you” to prove the alleged abuse was consensual. (In reality, such behaviour is common from survivors coping with trauma.)
But it’s harder for defence attorneys to discredit victims when the case is a matter of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.
“How can you have a mistaken belief about consent 10 times?” said Casey Gwinn, a former prosecutor and president of Alliance for HOPE International, an organisation that provides services to victims of sexual violence. “How many times can you say ‘Wow, I just didn’t get that?’”
Advertisement
Take the accusations against comedian Bill Cosby, for example. At his 2017 trial for sexual assault, only one witness, besides plaintiff Andrea Constand, was allowed to tell her story, and the judge declared a mistrial. During his second trial in 2018, with the Me Too movement in full swing, the judge allowed five accusers to testify and the jury convicted Cosby of sexual assault.
The tactic of allowing testimony by accusers outside those involved in the specific case is still controversial, however. Allegations of someone’s past behaviour cannot be used to prove they are guilty of a current charge, unless it meets certain criteria, such as proving an offender’s motive or identity, according to state and federal laws. When judges consider whether or not to admit testimony of what’s known as “prior bad acts,” they have to weigh the evidence’s importance against how much it will prejudice jurors.
In Cosby’s case, Judge Steven O’Neill may have allowed more witnesses in the second trial because of social pressures driven by the Me Too movement, said Wesley Oliver, the director of the criminal justice program at Duquesne University. But Oliver worried about jury prejudice if this evidence becomes more common, and said there should be limits around the number of accusers who can testify as witnesses.
“We know there’s a risk a jury will say ’Well, listen, he was guilty of one of the 50 accusations so we’ll just convict him,’” Oliver said. “We don’t want it to work that way.”
While judges must decide whether prior bad acts meet the rules, at least 14 states now make a special exception for accusations in sexual assault cases, since there is rarely physical evidence and convictions in such cases are rare. While New York is not one of those states, the Molineaux Rule does state that allegations of prior sexual misconduct can be admitted for specific reasons, such as to prove an offender repeatedly followed the same plan or had a specific motive.
Advertisement
The three witnesses who will testify in Weinstein’s case show his “modus operandi” of “luring women to his apartment or hotel room under the guise of reading a script or talking about business,” said Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer whose client will tell her story at Weinstein’s trial. Two of the witnesses say he assaulted them in hotel rooms, which mirrors one of the plaintiff’s accusations of being raped in 2013. Wigdor’s client said after getting a call from Weinstein’s office to come in and read a screenplay, he raped her at his luxury apartment building in Manhattan. Mimi Haleyi, Weinstein’s former production assistant and the other plaintiff in the criminal case, said she was forced to perform oral sex after being summoned to his apartment for a meeting in 2006.
While Wigdor told HuffPost that in his experience, judges have always been amenable towards admitting “prior bad acts witnesses” in sex assault cases, others say it has become more common. Gwinn said that during his career as a prosecutor between 1985 and 2004 he “virtually never” saw this kind of evidence, but that police officers, prosecutors and judges have been influenced by cultural movements over the past decade. But he said there is still a long way to go before survivors see justice in courtrooms.
“If the rapist is a nobody and the victim is a nobody, I’m not so sure that judges feel as much pressure as they do in high-profile cases,” Gwinn said. “Most rapists are not Hollywood producers.”
Gloria Allred, the civil rights lawyer who represented three of the witnesses at Cosby’s retrial, said she believes prosecutors are more likely to take on serial predators and to request testimony from accusers outside of the criminal case.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Lizzo Helps Out At Foodbank For Wildfire Relief During Australian Tour Stop

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Lizzo has done her bit to help those in need as devastating wildfires continue to rage in Australia.
The organisation Foodbank Australia shared a photo of the Grammy-nominated singer paying a visit to one of their warehouses in Victoria, while in Australia on her current world tour.
The post read: “Beautiful [Lizzo] stopped by our… warehouse today to thank our hardworking team and vollies who have been working tirelessly for the past 6 days.
Advertisement
“What a star she even packed hampers for fire-affected regions. Thank you for the support.”
Lizzo has not spoken publicly about the visit or posted about it on social media, though many of her fans on Instagram have praised her for her work, with one writing: “She didn’t even have to yet, she donated her time to give us a helping hand. A beautiful woman inside and out.”
Another responded: “She didn’t even make a big deal out of it, didn’t do it for the publicity. She did it because she’s amazing.”
Advertisement
In the last week, a number of stars have announced they’re donating money to the cause, with Sir Elton John pledging $1 million while performing in Australia.
Australian celebrities like Liam and Chris Hemsworth and Kylie Minogue have also made large donations to the relief effort, with the Thor actor encouraging his fans to give “whatever they can muster up”.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Adorable New Puppy Is Making Everyone Swoon

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has unveiled a brand new member of her family — an adorable puppy.
“So we just did something big,” the lawmaker revealed in an Instagram story on Monday. She then introduced the cute canine, who is believed to be a French Bulldog. “Hey boo boo. Hi. Welcome to our family,” she said in the clip, above.
Ocasio-Cortez wrote she was thinking of naming the dog “something Star Trek related or Bronx/Queens/NYC/social good related.”
Advertisement
On Twitter, she explained “the goal is to train him to be a community pup.”
“Ideally we want to work to the point where he can enjoy town halls, be an Amtrak pup, come to the office, etc.,” Ocasio-Cortez added.
Yes! 🐶 the goal is to train him to be a community pup. Ideally we want to work to the point where he can enjoy town halls, be an Amtrak pup, come to the office, etc.
But first, naps 😴 pic.twitter.com/ec8beJTrmZ — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 7, 2020
It’s unclear where Ocasio-Cortez got the dog from. Her office did not immediately reply to HuffPost’s request for further information.
The pooch received a warm welcome on social media, where many owners responded by sharing snaps of their own pups:
Advertisement
he is perfect — Sam (@Samuel_Burnear) January 7, 2020
Welcome to the frenchie family. All they do is nap nap nap. pic.twitter.com/opxM5KDYdg — Andy Lo (@Gooner_Lopez) January 8, 2020
Adorable — No war with Iran (@bulerias128) January 7, 2020
This is my guy Carter. He’d be thrilled to join you guys for walks when yours is ready to socialize. pic.twitter.com/NbQRM1coPv — mehrad (@mxhrxd) January 7, 2020
Advertisement
OMG!!!! Gonna need to swing down to DC and get cuddles <3 — Jess Newman 🌹🕊 (@OrganizerJess36) January 7, 2020
He is so precious pic.twitter.com/z3dDPxBX07 — Karla Ortiz (@kortizart) January 7, 2020
He's beautiful. Congratulations on your new baby. I have three dogs and two cats - all rescues. They make life so much more enjoyable. #RescueDogs #RescueCats pic.twitter.com/7bPpXj3fJQ — la résistance (@BamasLadyJ) January 8, 2020
Gorgeous. This is Bella the French bulldog. pic.twitter.com/bdFW9gPfyh — Gina Roberts 🌹💚 🌎🇪🇺 (@fbpe_gina) January 7, 2020


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--MP To Report Peer To Police For Homophobia And Abuse Of Parliament Staff

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Police are investigating allegations of a hate crime at the House of Commons after an MP who was called “queer” by a peer after she raised his “abusive” behaviour towards parliamentary staff.
Lord Ken Maginnis was accused of “one of the worst cases of abuse of security staff I have seen” by SNP MP Hannah Bardell.
Advertisement
The Northern Irish unionist peer launched a tirade at staff, calling them “crooked” after he forgot his pass to enter parliament and they would not allow him in, Bardell told the Commons on Wednesday.
PA Archive/PA Images
Responding to HuffPost UK, Maginnis did not deny the allegations, instead choosing to attack Bardell by accusing her of attempting to to “settle a score” because she is “queer” and he is opposed to gay marriage.
Bardell told the Commons on Thursday morning she considered his comments about her to “be a hate crime”.
Advertisement
“We must set the best possible standards for this place for other LGBT people and indeed our staff,” she added.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Thursday evening that it was investigating an allegation of hate crime at the House of Commons.
A spokeswoman said: “The Met’s Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team is looking into an allegation of hate crime at the House of Commons made to them on Thursday January 9.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, said Maginnis’ “attack” on Bardell was “unutterably disgraceful”. He told MPs Bardell was “clearly owed an apology” from the peer.
He added: “I think everybody who heard about that was shocked by the comments he is reported to have made and not denied. I think they are really appalling.”
Advertisement
Later, the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, said Lord Maginnis’s language was “totally unacceptable and has no place in parliament”.
“I am deeply concerned by recent reports of a member of the House of Lords directing offensive language towards parliamentary security staff and a member of parliament,” he said.
“The reported behaviour and use of such language is totally unacceptable and has no place in parliament.
“We are working hard to build an inclusive and respectful environment, and behaviour such as this totally undermines our collective efforts.
“Security on the parliamentary estate is everyone’s responsibility. Any disregard for security rules is against the interests of us all.
Advertisement
“Our security staff do a difficult job with the utmost professionalism and deserve support from all members.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Barry Gardiner Says 'I Can Win A General Election' In Interview Live From Abu Dhabi

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Barry Gardiner has insisted he can win a general election as he confirmed his wish to run to be Labour leader.
In an interview with the BBC live from Abu Dhabi, the shadow international trade secretary said he was attempting to clear the 22-MP hurdle needed to enter the race.
Advertisement
He told presenter Victoria Derbyshire: “It’s very late now to be entering this race and I do so because I want to energise it, because I want to be sure that it can get the sort of dynamism into the debate that it needs.”
Are you going to stand for Labour leader?
“I haven’t quite made up my mind,” says @BarryGardinerhttps://t.co/X3zJlyoix0 #VictoriaLIVE pic.twitter.com/N5dlvoAXfM — Victoria Derbyshire (@VictoriaLIVE) January 9, 2020
Gardiner said he had respect for colleagues already in the race and that they would “make a better prime minister than Boris Johnson”, but added: “If I do stand it will be because I stand the best chance of winning a general election that can bring in a Labour government that gives hope to people.”
He is in Abu Dhabi for a climate change conference.
It comes after HuffPost UK revealed that Gardiner was preparing to enter the competition amid doubts about the left’s favoured candidate Rebecca Long Bailey.
Advertisement
The shadow minister has served in frontbench posts in both the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown administrations.
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer has a commanding lead as it stands, according to a YouGov released last week, and already has the 22 backers he needs to get on the ballot.
Gardiner could struggle to win enough nominations, however, with candidates including Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry fighting to stay in the contest.
There are 202 Labour MPs and nominations close in five days.
Long Bailey is in second place with the support of seven MPs. Jess Phillips has the support of six MPs.
Lisa Nandy, who impressed backbenchers with her pitch at the first leadership hustings in front of MPs on Tuesday night, has the backing of two MPs.
Advertisement
Thornberry has received the backing of one MP. Clive Lewis has not received the vote of any MPs so far.
Under party rules, once the required 22 MPs have been secured, leadership contenders then need to win 5% of local party nominations or 5% of party affiliates such as trade unions or socialist societies.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Are Harry And Meghan Actually Going To Be ‘Financially Independent’?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Big news, everybody – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they are “stepping back” as “senior” members of the royal family and will work to become “financially independent”.
If your reaction to this development was along the lines of “wut?”, that is completely understandable.
Advertisement
The financial workings of Her Maj and Co are more than a little complex and their definition of “financially independent” is almost certainly a far cry from the general population’s.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have announced they are 'stepping back' from the royal family. Samir Hussein via Getty Images
Even the former chancellor said it would be “very difficult” for the royals to be financially independent.
“It’s very difficult for people who are senior members of the royal family to have careers in the ordinary sense of the word,” Philip Hammond told BBC 5 Live’s Emma Barnett in January.
“It’s very commendable that somebody in that position wants to try to earn their own living. It’s also only fair that we recognise that the intense interest that the media and the public opinion will take in everything that they do will make it actually quite difficult for them to do so,” he said.
Advertisement
So here are a few questions you might have, answered:
What are they actually doing?
A basic, but cracking, question. According to Harry and Meghan’s announcement, they are:
... step[ping] back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, [to] become members of the royal family with financial independence...
Yes, but what does that actually mean?
Let’s start with a bit of background about how the royals are financed. Since 2012, the Sovereign Grant has been the primary source of money used to fund the Queen’s official duties as monarch, including any work by other members of the royal family that supports these duties.
This includes things like official receptions, investitures and garden parties as well as the cost of travel involved in royal visits. For 2019-20, the Sovereign Grant has been set at £82.4m.
For 2017-18, the profit generated by The Crown Estate – land and property across the UK – totalled £329.4m and was surrendered to the treasury. The Sovereign Grant is calculated as a percentage of that profit and handed back to the royals.
The issue of whether or not the monarchy represents taxpayer value for money is hotly contested. The total cost per person in the UK was worked out by the palace as £1.24 each in 2018/19, and this has been rising.
Advertisement
But it’s worth pointing out that this is based on the Sovereign Grant alone. A combination of research and estimates from anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has identified potential “hidden costs” of several times this – in 2017, it estimated the true cost to the public at closer to £345m, taking into account things like security, lost income, and the expense to local councils of running royal visits.
Statista
This also has to be balanced against the tourism revenues they generate, which according to one estimate totalled a whopping £1.8bn in 2017. Republic, unsurprisingly, contests this, saying the tourism would occur whether or not the royal family itself remained and that estimates have been highly speculative and based on vaguely worded surveys.
Either way, the Sussexes will no longer receive money from the Sovereign Grant for their formal office expenses. Their new official website, sussexroyal.com, said the grant had accounted for 5% of their office costs.
All the same, it’s unlikely the Sovereign Grant itself will be reduced as it is set to a statutory level, meaning the taxpayer’s bill won’t go down.
Advertisement
What about non-office costs?
This isn’t that clear right now. The Sovereign Grant is also used to pay for Harry and Meghan’s official royal travel, and their website said they “proudly” carry out official overseas visits in support of the Queen, suggesting they will still continue to do so.
Who pays for the rest of their costs?
The Prince of Wales currently pays for the remaining cost of their public duties and some of their private costs from his Duchy of Cornwall income. It’s not known if they will renounce all of part of this.
So they’re going to get actual jobs?
It looks like it but they won’t be stacking shelves in a supermarket.
Jeff Jacobson, co-founder of the Talent Bureau speaking agency, told Bloomberg that Harry could command Barack Obama-level fees – more than $100,000 (£76,330) per appearance.
There has been no announcement about any other possible roles. Harry is a former soldier and Meghan is a former actress so perhaps there’s a modern reboot of Soldier Soldier in the works.
The pair are also about to launch their new SussexRoyal foundation but they will not benefit financially from this.
Advertisement
Will they still live in Frogmore Cottage?
They will continue to base themselves at Frogmore Cottage when in the UK, but it’s worth noting that “cottage” is a bit of an understatement.
Taxpayers paid £2.4m to renovate Harry and Meghan’s official residence, which the couple moved into just nine months ago. As this money has already been spent, it would arguably be a bit of a waste if they moved out, to be honest.
Frogmore Cottage, the new home of Prince Harry and Meghan. GOR via Getty Images
Will they cost the UK taxpayer any more money after this?
Almost certainly. Stepping down as a senior royal doesn’t mean disappearing into a life of anonymity and their highly recognisable faces will still need protecting – that’s where some of the “hidden costs” we mentioned above go.
Referring to armed security by the Metropolitan Police mandated by the Home Office, a statement on the couple’s official website says: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people which mandates this level of security.”
Advertisement
Infographic supplied by Statista.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Ross Kemp Left Unable To Speak After Smoking Spice As Part Of New Prison Documentary

Ross Kemp was left unable to speak after smoking spice as part of a new documentary.
During a visit to HMP Belmarsh as part of his new ITV show about the prison, Ross smoked a “tiny amount of spice residue” that was left in the end of one inmate’s vape.
Writing in The Sun, Ross explained the drug - dubbed Man Down - was made of a “potentially lethal combination of aluminium cleaner and insect killer”, noting: “It does exactly what it says on the tin.”
“I am rarely lost for words but as I turn to camera, I have lost the ability to speak,” he recalled. “My brain has gone blank, my hands are clammy and my mouth is dry.”
Advertisement
Ross Kemp ITV
Ross revealed that the prisoner whose vape he had used had collapsed after smoking the drug, and had to be revived by guards.
He added: “As he is brought round by staff using citrus — which can knock off some of the effects of Spice — he stares at me through bloodshot, dilated pupils and screams: ‘Get out of my fucking cell.’ When I spoke to him the next day, he could not remember meeting me.
“I asked him why he smoked the drug in his cell, considering he knew it was potentially harmful, and he told me: ‘It takes me out of here for four days.’ This is life in HMP Belmarsh.”
Advertisement
Ross Kemp at last year's Sun Military Awards Tristan Fewings via Getty Images
The former-EastEnders-star-turned-documentarian spent six months visiting the famous south-east London prison filming his documentary, which in the past has held Ian Huntley and the killers of Lee Rigby.
Stephen Laxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, is also currently incarcerated at HMP Belmarsh, who Ross interviews as part of the documentary.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Princess Diana's Former Personal Chef Loses It Over Meghan Markle

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Darren McGrady, a former personal chef for Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Diana, and Princes William and Harry, fired off tweets aimed at Meghan Markle after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced that they were stepping back as “senior” members of the royal family.
In the string of four tweets, McGrady ― who goes by “The Royal Chef” on his website and on social media ― said that Prince Harry was being “manipulated” and that Meghan “just wanted to be famous.”
Advertisement
“People saying Princess Diana would be proud don’t know Princess Diana. She would have been furious that Harry had been so manipulated,” he wrote, adding the hashtag “Sad Day.”
In a follow-up, he wrote, “I remember Princess Diana in the kitchen at Kensington Palace talking about ‘her boys’ ... ‘William is deep like his father. Harry is an airhead like me’ I guess she nailed it.” (Harry was 12 when his mother died in 1997.)
Meghan never wanted to be Royal. Meghan wanted to be famous. Meghan is famous! It's all about Meghan! https://t.co/SNAij6yWz7 — The Royal Chef (@DarrenMcGrady) January 8, 2020
People saying Princess Diana would be proud don't know Princess Diana. She would have been furious that Harry had been so manipulated #SadDay — The Royal Chef (@DarrenMcGrady) January 8, 2020
Advertisement
I remember Princess Diana in the kitchen at Kensington Palace talking about "her boys" ... "William is deep like his father. Harry is an airhead like me" I guess she nailed it. — The Royal Chef (@DarrenMcGrady) January 9, 2020
Even in her darkest hour Princess Diana respected The Queen. She would have been so mad with Harry right now. — The Royal Chef (@DarrenMcGrady) January 9, 2020
HuffPost reached out to McGrady for additional comment.
McGrady routinely gives interviews as a royal expert and offers up anecdotes about his time working for the royals for a reported 15 years. Recently, he was featured in an article about one of Kate Middleton’s favourite recipes. He has written two cookbooks called Eating Royally: Recipes and Remembrances from a Palace Kitchen and The Royal Chef at Home: Easy Seasonal Entertaining.
According to his website, he has also cooked for four U.S. presidents. The former royal chef still works as a private chef.
On Wednesday, Harry and Meghan shocked fans around the world as they announced that they would be stepping back from their current royal roles.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Aussie Teens Rescue Carload Of Burned Koalas From Fire-Struck Bushland

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Two kindhearted Australian teens have driven through wildfire-ravaged bushland to rescue a carload of injured koalas and deliver them to safety.
A viral video documents Micah Lovegrove and his cousin’s rescue mission as they loaded their car with at least six singed koalas after a wildfire devastated Kangaroo Island, a biodiverse island off the coast of South Australia.
Advertisement
Lovegrove, whose uncle lost his property in the fire, started an impromptu rescue mission and has been rounding up as many koalas as possible. He delivers them to his neighbor, who has a permit to care for wildlife, Storyful reported.
A group of people have gone around Kangaroo Island collecting as many koalas as they can find to help relocate and rehabilitate them. What champions! 🐨 💙 pic.twitter.com/n7YWIjRMrm — news.com.au (@newscomauHQ) January 7, 2020
“Doing a little koala rescue... Just trying to collect as many live ones as we can,” one of the teenagers says in the video.
Kangaroo Island was home to one of Australia’s only chlamydia-free populations of koalas and was considered a haven for the marsupial. The island’s population was estimated at 50,000.
Advertisement
Department of Environment bushfire recovery coordinator Brenton Grear said in a press release that the injured koalas must be treated locally and not taken to the mainland in order to avoid contamination.
Due to the magnitude of the fires burning on the island, it is too soon to know how many animals have been affected, the press release stated.
The inferno tore through 625 square miles ― a third of Kangaroo Island ― destroying a large portion of the Flinders Chase National Park. Two men, a father and a son, were killed in the blaze.
The South Australian and federal governments have announced an $11 million funding package for those devastated by the fires, and the Australian Defence Force has commenced recovery and relief efforts.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--These Foods Can Change The Colour Of Your Poo

Tania Bondar via Getty Images Some changes in the color of your poop could be caused by your diet or medications. Other times, a change of color could indicate a medical concern.
“It’s not blood, it’s beets.”
There’s a monumental scene from Portlandia that all too accurately depicts what it’s like to see red in the toilet bowl and — in a moment of panic — forget that you’ve recently eaten beets.
Beets and beyond, there are some foods that tend to change the colour of your stool. Sometimes a strange colour can be a sign of a health issue — and when it’s accompanied by other symptoms, it may be a reason for concern. But it’s important to keep in mind that sometimes food is the culprit of a wacky poo.
Advertisement
“Stool is made up of everything we eat, so basically what goes in, comes out,” Lisa Ganjhu, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU’s School of Medicine, told HuffPost.
“The digestive process with the enzymes and bile will change the stools to a general tone of brown,” she said, noting that stool colour tends to range from a light brown to a dark brown because the food gets mixed with bile pigment to help with digestion.
So the next time you see something a little irregular in the bowl, think about whether you’ve consumed any of the foods below before you start to worry.
Beets
Rodrigo Zuñiga/EyeEm via Getty Images Notice red poop after eating beets? It's common.
Advertisement
The aforementioned root veggie causes many people’s poop to turn a dark red colour that can sometimes look like blood. Scary!
Red beets contain betacyanin, which is what gives them their deep hue. While the digestive process breaks down most chemicals in ways that make them lose their colours, betacyanin is processed differently for different people. You may or may not notice a red tint to your poop (and pee!) post-beet-fest.
If you were indeed eating beets in the last few days before your reddish poop, you’re most likely in the clear. If you notice red streaks in your poop and have not been consuming beets (or any other red food items on this list), it could be blood. In this case, it’s best to consult with your doctor right away about what to do next.
Green Veggies
If you like to load up on greens like spinach, broccoli and lettuce, your poop may reflect that. Foods that contain a lot of chlorophyll, a green pigment present in many naturally green foods, may end up coming out in a colour similar to the one they first began.
Green poop is usually benign, but it may sometimes be an indication of a potential health problem, according to Live Science. Infections like salmonella may sometimes lead to green stool — but these are often accompanied by other issues, including diarrhoea, stomach cramps and fever. Chances are if you’re feeling healthy and not experiencing any other symptoms, your green doo is just a sign that you’ve been eating your veggies.
Advertisement
Blueberries
BrianAJackson via Getty Images Blueberries can cause your poop to have a blue or black tinge.
The colour is in the name, so don’t let yourself be too surprised if your poop is having a Smurf moment after you’ve been noshing on blueberries. These small-but-potent berries may colour your faeces with a blue or black tinge; some people have reported seeing green from eating blueberries as well.
You know your poop is just reacting to your diet if you see a colour change after loading up on berries. There is, however, a rare condition called porphyria that can lead to bluish-purple waste. The disorder often shows up with other symptoms, including nausea, breathing problems and seizures, according to the Mayo Clinic.
Food Colouring
In 2017, Oreo and Peeps teamed up to make Peeps Oreos, a novelty snack with a bright pink filling. Almost as soon as the product launched, people reported (on Twitter, naturally) pink poop.
The cookie sandwich relied on erythrosine, also known as Red No. 3, to get its bubble gum pink colour that drew people to it in the first place. The body does not break down artificial colouring, Anish Sheth, a doctor specialszing in gastroenterology told Mic back when the pink cookie debacle first surfaced.
Advertisement
It’s the same reason that Burger King’s black Halloween burger turned consumers’ stools green back in 2015; a combination of blue, red, yellow and caramel-coloured food dyes turned the burger bun black but resulted in green-coloured stool because of how the dyes were digested and mixed with other fluids in the body. Science! It’s cool. The green poop certainly gave consumers a shock, but was ultimately nothing to be concerned about.
Medications
Oleh_Kucheriavyi via Getty Images Some medications can affect the color of your stool.
OK, this isn’t a food necessarily, but it is something you ingest so it’s worth mentioning. Certain medications may have an effect on your stool color.
Bismuth subsalicylate, the generic name for Pepto-Bismol, can make both your saliva and your poop go a little goth — but the change is temporary and harmless. Radiogardase (also known as Prussian blue), a medication that helps remove radioactive compounds from the body, may cause a person’s poop to turn blue for as long as the medication is taken.
Bottom line: If you know you ate something suspect, you’re probably OK. But if you’re slightly worried, it’s best to call up your doctor just to rule out any concerns.
Advertisement
While the colour of your stool often reflects what you’ve been eating lately, certain colours, including white, black or red, can signal a more serious concern, according to Ganjhu. White, pale or grey stool is an indicator of a biliary obstruction.
“That means the bile duct can be blocked by a stone, a mass or cancer,” she said. “The bile is not making its way to the GI tract and the bile pigment is not getting mixed in with the stool.”
And black stool can be an indicator of digested blood. “If someone had a bleeding stomach ulcer, the blood makes it way down the GI tract, gets digested with enzymes and turns black,” Ganjhu said.
When stool is bright red or bloody, it’s possible there is bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract. If brown stool contains a streak of blood, Ganjhu said, an ulcer, haemorrhoid or fissure could be a possibility, as can colon cancer. In the case of any of these funky poop colours, Ganjhu said it’s a good idea to be medically evaluated as soon as possible.
“The rest of the rainbow of stool colour are based on your diet or what you put in your system,” she said. “When in doubt, please see a doctor.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Love Island Winner Amber Gill Reveals 'Full-On Lie' She Told In Her Entrance Video

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Reigning Love Island winner Amber Gill has revealed she wasn’t entirely truthful in her bid to land a place in the villa.
Amber was a contestant on the show last summer, entering on day one and eventually being crowned winner, alongside then-partner Greg O’Shea.
Advertisement
But while a new batch of contestants are currently waiting to enter the villa, Amber has insisted we shouldn’t judge them based solely on their entrance videos, as she said “all sorts of madness” in her own.
Speaking to her Instagram followers, Amber admitted: “As far as my opinions go on the Islanders, it is hard to say because I don’t want to form an opinion yet because I was saying all sorts of madness in my VT.
Amber Gill Matt Frost/ITV/Shutterstock
“So I wouldn’t want anyone to judge me for that – even though that is what it’s there for.”
Amber added: “I’m sure I said I have never been rejected... or something like that which was [a] full-on lie but I wanted to sound interesting.”
Advertisement
Amber made the revelation on her Instagram Story Instagram
But Amber isn’t the only contestant on last year’s Love Island guilty of telling a little white lie.
After leaving the villa, former Islander Elma Pazar confessed to knocking three years off her age when talking to the rest of the group.
“I lied about my age on Love Island. I tell everyone I’m 23, it’s a real issue,” she revealed on the show’s official podcast.
“I’m 26 but now everyone knows it because [the show] said they couldn’t lie for me.”
The first ever winter series of Love Island launches on Sunday night at 9pm on ITV2.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Love Island 2020 Villa: Take A Look At The Show's New Home In South Africa

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The first photos of the brand new Love Island villa have been revealed, ahead of the first ever winter series.
For the new January run, the show will be moving from its usual residence in Mallorca to a brand new home in South Africa.
Advertisement
And while the show’s new villa had already been estimated to be at least twice the size of its usual compound, new pictures reveal exactly what’s been done with the space.
Of course, it’s still Love Island, so the new villa still has the usual touches that fans have become used to in the last five series – namely brightly-coloured scatter cushions everywhere and random words sprawled over the walls in a faux handwriting font – but there are a few new additions too...
Although the show has a brand new home, they're keeping the same aesthetic as always... ITV
...which includes random romantic words being written everywhere ITV
Advertisement
This year, the boys will have their own dressing room, which has been billed as a place to get ready and *sigh* “have some lad chat”, while pictures of the bathroom reveal there’s a double shower.
As well as a pool and hot tub, new pictures of the “vibey” hideaway also reveal where the hopefuls can get some alone time away from the rest of the villa.
Expect plenty of "lad chat" in here ITV
The romantic Hideaway has been given a makeover ITV
And speaking of alone time, this series Love Island has added a new feature called the “dog house”, where the contestants can sleep if they’ve been kicked out of the bed they’d usually share with their partners.
Advertisement
Take a look at more photos of the new villa below…
Take a look around Love Island's new South African villa See gallery
Earlier this week, the 12 contestants heading into the South African villa were also revealed.
Among the seven girls and five boys joining the show this time around include a pair of identical twins, Rochelle Humes’ sister and a future “lord of the manor”.
Love Island debuts on Sunday night at 9pm on ITV2.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--I Wasn’t Ready For How Cancer Treatment Changed My Sense Of Femininity

HuffPost UK Courtesy of the author
It was at my annual medical review that the doctors first saw something underneath my arm.
“Not sure about this,” they said. “We want you to go for a scan.”
Close to Christmas 2015, they called me in again. This time to give me the worst news they could possibly give me: “It’s cancer”. But not only was it cancer, it was triple negative breast cancer – one of the worst cancers you can get.
The trouble with triple negative breast cancer is that it’s very aggressive, and it’s very fast growing. Recurrence rates are higher than other cancers and it used to be known as a death sentence. However, because we got there early and my cancer was looking super-aggressive, my doctors gave me the strongest treatment plan possible, always aiming for a cure.
Advertisement
I’m an analytical, rational person, and so I did a lot of research on how we die – what happens to your body, who survives and who doesn’t survive. And I decided I wasn’t going to let cancer just ‘happen’ to me.
“The most devastating side effect is one they don’t often tell you about: my treatment brought on chemically-induced early menopause...”
From the beginning, I was clear I wanted to keep on working. I was running a team spread across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. I found it very difficult to show any kind of weakness being a woman in an IT environment, which is very male-dominated, and I was scared of being perceived as inadequate, or even worse that my illness would jeopardise my job. However, I found that people were softer, kinder and more considerate than I expected. I didn’t want anyone to feel sorry for me or to make special arrangements for me. I just wanted to be me and be known for what I could do and the value I can add, not for what I now couldn’t do.
Fortunately, I responded well to chemotherapy. I know many other triple negative patients don’t respond to the chemotherapy and unfortunately the outcome can be very uncertain. When you’re being treated, it’s a very difficult thing to think about – that some people survive it, and some people don’t.
Advertisement
Physically, though, I struggled. My cancer treatment really knocked my confidence and stripped me of something I wasn’t expecting: my femininity.
As a woman, the way cancer treatment changed my body was devastating. Your skin noticeably goes thinner, making you age. Suddenly, you get a little bit more around your waist where’s you’ve never had it before (and you don’t understand why you can’t get rid of it so easily).
HuffPost UK Courtesy of the author
Strangely, I struggled to wear high-heeled shoes. It turns out chemotherapy damages the nerves in your body causing weakness in muscles and this interferes with your ability to function normally and comfortably so it hurts wear high shoes.
I lost my hair, which made me very insecure. My long dark hair was, and is, one of my features, and it was really, really scary to lose it. Firstly, because you really don’t realise how much your hair keeps you warm until you don’t have it anymore, but also because it makes you extremely vulnerable – people immediately know you are very ill. When you’re sick, you want to be able to control it, but when there’s an outer sign of it, it’s hard to control people’s perception of you. Plus, I couldn’t get on with wigs at all. And even once the hair started growing back in that pixie style, people would tell me “I love your hair” (to which I always thought, “seriously?”).
Advertisement
But the most devastating side effect is one they don’t often tell you about: my treatment brought on chemically-induced early menopause. I didn’t know it was going to happen, and then you really get slammed into it – for me around month two of chemotherapy.
They kind of say it could happen, but they don’t actually tell you what’s going to happen. You have hot flashes like never before. You must dress in layers because you’ve got to get cool as fast as you possibly can. You must have ice cold water with you all the time or else you seriously can’t function. You get crawly skin and you can’t sleep. Then there’s the shock that you just do not function as a woman anymore.
“Before my cancer, I never got sick. I never appreciated what it was like to lose your health.”
And you know what? Nobody really tells you how to manage any of the symptoms and whether it’s the chemotherapy or the menopause you’re now going through. You have to go and say, “Well, listen, now I’ve got this problem, what’s that?” Cancer suddenly turned me from a young, strong, healthy woman straight into a… not-so-young woman.
And so, to others going through cancer, there are two things I want to tell you.
First, listen to your body. It’s very stressful going through cancer treatment so it’s more important than ever to sleep well, eat well, walk, breathe deeply and things like that.
Advertisement
Second, be kind – both to yourself, and to those around you. Be present with your loved ones, your children, friends and colleagues. Before, when I was really busy with work, my little boy would come and chat to me, tell me stories, and the whole time I would be thinking about ten other things I had to do. I was with him, but I wasn’t present. Now, I put whatever I’m doing down and really listen to him. I am thankful for that as there is nothing better than the enthusiasm, positivity and sparkle of a child.
HuffPost UK Courtesy of the author
Before my cancer, I never got sick. I never appreciated what it was like to lose your health. And there are a lot of people that do lose their health but are getting on with life, trying to work hard and keep their families together. My experience has taught me it’s incumbent on all of us to be mindful of other people around us. I realised that I have a lot of facets to myself: I’m not just ‘Annette, vice president of insights & data’ but I’m Annette a mother, Annette a vulnerable woman, Annette a friend. It’s important to remember everyone else around us has those facets to their life too.
Since overcoming triple negative breast cancer I’m feeling stronger, both mentally and physically. The hot flashes are not as frequent, but I do have to listen to my body and take it a little bit easy sometimes when I don’t sleep or get super stressed. But I am happy.
I’m even back into my high heels.
Annette is supporting Cancer Research UK’s work to beat cancer right now. To find out more visit cruk.org
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--What Will Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Do Now?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced in a shocking statement on Wednesday that they were stepping down as “senior” members of the royal family and looking to make major changes with their lives.
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution,” the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said on their Sussex Royal Instagram account. “We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.” The announcement set off a shockwave across the internet and left major questions for royal diehards and casual fans alike. Amid the chatter and the headlines, Harry and Meghan released more information explaining their plans, and we’ve compiled a handy guide to all of the Megxit madness.
1. Why would they do this?
Harry and Meghan have not stated a reason other than telling their followers on Wednesday that they intend to “carve out a progressive new role within this institution.”
2. What does it all ... mean?
There are three main things to focus on as the duke and duchess step down: Harry and Meghan are moving, becoming financially independent and they’re going to work with the media differently.
3. Was this planned?
Meghan and Harry just returned from a six-week royal sabbatical in Canada, but it certainly appears the move and announcement were planned, as the pair already updated their website with additional information about what they’ll do.
Advertisement
4. How did the royal family react to the news?
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond reported that the royal family didn’t know that Meghan and Harry were putting out their announcement on Wednesday, and People quoted a royal source as saying, “There is a lot of hurt about this.”
Normally with news this big, the royal family would coordinate statements from Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Clarence House. But it took Buckingham Palace a few hours to issue a terse statement that lends credibility to the idea they didn’t know this was happening on Wednesday.
“Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage,” the palace said in a statement. “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
Prince Charles, Harry’s father, and Prince William, Harry’s older brother, have yet to respond publicly.
William, Kate, Meghan and Harry attend church service at the Church of St. Mary Magdalene on the Sandringham estate on Dec. 25, 2018, in King's Lynn, England. Samir Hussein via Getty Images
Advertisement
5. Have we ever seen anything like this from the royal family?
So glad you asked! As many have pointed out, Meghan and Harry’s move is drawing a lot of comparisons to Prince Edward, who abdicated the throne in 1936 in order to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée (Simpson is often compared to Meghan, who also was previously married).
We also recently saw Prince Andrew step away from royal duties, but for a much different reason. The Prince of York, Charles’ younger brother, stepped down from public life in November after his ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became too distracting for this role as a royal.
6. Where will Harry and Meghan live?
Harry and Meghan announced that they will be splitting their time between the U.K. (where they currently live at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor) and North America.
In North America, they’ll likely reside in Canada and possibly Los Angeles, where Meghan was born and where her mother, Doria Ragland, lives. While in the U.K., it’s unclear whether they will still live at the recently renovated Frogmore Cottage, which is located at Windsor Castle
7. How will they interact with media, specifically British media?
Starting this spring, Meghan and Harry said on their website, they will “provide access to credible media outlets” that do “accurate and honest media reporting.”
Advertisement
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said that as they are moving toward financial independence, they will do away with their participation in the royal rota, which is a collection of royal correspondents from British media outlets including The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Mirror.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex leave after their visit to Canada House in London on Jan. 7. Daniel Leal-Olivas/Pool via REUTERS
8. Are Meghan and Harry still royalty?
Yes, Meghan and Harry are still royalty. Drawing on recent royal precedent, after Prince Andrew announced in November he was stepped back from duties, there was no change to his royal status or his title as the Duke of York.
9. Will Prince Harry get a last name?
He already has one! Technically, in the military, Prince Harry used the name “Harry Wales,” and his full name is actually “His Royal Highness (HRH) Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales.”
If he needs a last name, he could also use the surname Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip came up with in 1960 for their direct descendants, which is “Mountbatten-Windsor.” Little Archie also uses the surname, as he doesn’t have a royal title.
Advertisement
9. What does this mean for Archie?
Right now Archie’s biggest job is looking cute. But Archie will likely follow in the footsteps of Harry’s cousins, Zara Tindall, Peter Phillips and Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, who are not working royals and do not carry out any form of royal duties.
The children of Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, don’t have royal titles.
10. How will Meghan and Harry’s royal roles change?
According to their Sussex Royal website, Harry and Meghan will continue to support their various patronages and charities and carry out their duties on behalf of the monarchy when called upon (which means we’ll probably see less of them).
The two said that they’re focused on starting a new charitable entity, which will see them focused on issues like conservation, mental health, female empowerment and Harry’s beloved Invictus Games.
11. How will they become financially independent? Are they going to get real-world jobs?
Currently, the royal family is funded by the Sovereign Grant, which supports Queen Elizabeth II and her household’s official expenses. Harry and Meghan’s office only takes 5% of their funding from the Sovereign Grant and gets 95% of their funds from Prince Charles’ estate (which supports Prince Harry’s annual allowance).
Advertisement
The royal family has not yet announced how Harry and Meghan will move toward financial independence. But we know Harry inherited a large sum of money from his mother, Princess Diana, and Meghan, of course, has her own money from her entertainment career.
12. Will Meghan Markle ever act again?
Just after announcing her engagement to Prince Harry in November 2017, Meghan announced that she was stepping away from her former life as an actor to focus on new royal duties.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--War With Iran Is Nothing To Worry About, Men Who Launched Iraq War Promise

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Over the past week, the American people have been glued to cable news broadcasts with blaring red chyrons warning of imminent military conflict in the Middle East. Trump administration officials have offered varying rationales for military action, none of them particularly credible. The human cost of this war, if it happens, could be devastating — which has put the international community and millions of Americans on edge. But people like Paul Wolfowitz and Ari Fleischer, wielding their large media megaphones, have assured the nation that everything will be fine — that it’s even possible people in the country we might attack will “celebrate” our efforts.
It’s not 2003, but it sure feels like it. In a sane and just society, the architects of the nearly 17-year-old war in Iraq — which is still ongoing and has left an estimated half-million people dead — would face war crimes charges and those who cheered them on would be thoroughly discredited. Instead, they are the “experts” praising President Donald Trump’s decision to assassinate top Iranian military commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani and offering the public insight on the way forward with Iran.
Advertisement
Left to right: Tom Friedman, Stephen Hadley, Marc Thiessen, Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and Paul Wolfowitz. Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: Getty
Here is an incomplete list of people who were horribly wrong about Iraq but are convinced they are right about Iran:
Bush Administration Officials
Paul Wolfowitz
2003: As deputy secretary of defense, Wolfowitz was one of the architects of the Iraq War. “If Rumsfeld is the face, mouth and strong right arm of the war in Iraq, Wolfowitz — the intellectual godfather of the war — is its heart and soul,” CNN reporter Mark Thompson wrote in December 2003, referring to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Iraqis “are going to welcome us as liberators,” Wolfowitz predicted ahead of the invasion. “The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants — and they have many — governing them is just nonsense,” he said at the time.
Advertisement
2020: Wolfowitz told Fox News that “a lot of people were saying we were being too mild” by not using military force against Iran sooner. “I think in hindsight we did it about right. And I think this was the time to do something rapid and bold,” he said of the Soleimani assassination. If Iran responds violently, that action might turn out to be part of a plan that Soleimani had cooked up before he was killed, Wolfowitz said in an effort to obscure U.S. responsibility for escalating violence. “It’s not like they’re necessarily responding to us,” he said.
The key priority, according to Wolfowitz, should be keeping U.S. troops in Iraq — even though members of Iraq’s parliament and the outgoing prime minister have called on American forces to leave. “It would be an enormous victory for Iran if they were able to see us leave,” Wolfowitz said.
Karl Rove
2003: As President George W. Bush’s senior adviser, Rove helped scare the public into supporting a preemptive war against Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. He advised the Republican Party to politicise the war and try to convince people that Republicans were better than Democrats at protecting America, Newsweek reported.
2020: Rove blasted Democrats for not being enthusiastic enough about military conflict with Iran.
“They’ve gotta turn this into a complete political tribal moment and respond negatively and make the entire Democratic Party look weak,” Rove said on Fox News. “The Democrats are like San Francisco Democrats all over again in the mid-1980s. ‘Oh, we’re weak, we’re wringing our hands. Oh, terrible, woe is me, the president is taking actions that could put us at risk.’”
Ari Fleischer
2003: As Bush’s press secretary, Fleischer played a key role in selling the Iraq War. Now out of government, he commemorates the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks each year with long Twitter threads detailing what it was like behind the scenes the day the Twin Towers fell.
Advertisement
2020: He hopes Americans will come together and cheer the death of Soleimani like they did after the U.S. military killed Osama bin Laden, Fleischer said on Fox News. It is “entirely possible” that the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official could serve as a “catalyst” inside Iran, where people would “celebrate this killing of Soleimani and put pressure on the Iranian government to stop its terrorism, to stop supporting all the various terrorist movements it has around the world,” he said.
Marc Thiessen
2003: Thiessen was the chief speechwriter for Rumsfeld, who knew the Bush administration’s case for war wasn’t backed by intelligence but ploughed ahead with invasion nonetheless. Thiessen went on to write a book defending the CIA’s torture program as necessary to save American lives ― a claim that contradicts the spy agency’s own internal memos, which document how torture failed to provide useful intelligence.
2020: Now a columnist for The Washington Post, Thiessen argued that Trump had demonstrated “enormous restraint” but ultimately had to enforce a red line and kill Soleimani so that Iran would know Trump wasn’t weak. Thiessen contended that the assassination was “defensive, preemptive, and lawful,” an assertion based on the Trump administration’s claim that intelligence suggested Soleimani was plotting an imminent attack on U.S. targets. That intelligence was “razor-thin,” U.S. officials told New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.
Stephen Hadley
2003: As Bush’s deputy national security adviser, Hadley failed to remove references to a false intelligence report about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions from Bush’s State of the Union speech, despite receiving two memos and a phone call from then-CIA Director George Tenet objecting to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Africa to build nuclear weapons. Hadley was promoted to national security adviser in 2005.
2020: Killing Soleimani “was a bold move with potentially far-reaching consequences. It unquestionably heightens the risk of war; it could also open the door to diplomacy,” Hadley wrote in The Washington Post. The Post did not mention that Hadley is a director at Raytheon, the defence contractor that built a targeting system used in the type of drone that killed Soleimani, as writer Adam Johnson noted on Twitter.
Advertisement
John Yoo
2003: Yoo, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003, is best known for drafting the legal justification for torturing people suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. He also wrote a memo two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks stating that Bush could use military force against groups and individuals even if it was “difficult to establish … that [they] have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States.”
2020: People who criticise the legality of Trump killing the top military commander of a country that the U.S. is not currently at war with “have the law wrong,” Yoo wrote in National Review. According to Yoo, the strike was legal because of a vaguely drafted war authorisation passed by Congress in 2001 to go after the Sept. 11 plotters and another in 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein. Even if those authorisations had been repealed, the Constitution allows the president to use force to prevent a future attack, Yoo continued, apparently leaning on the “razor-thin” evidence suggesting Soleimani was planning an imminent attack.
War Cheerleaders
Ken Pollack
2003: Pollack, a former CIA analyst who worked at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, helped convince liberals to support the war. In September 2002 he published a book called “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” It was “surely the most influential book of this season” and “provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr Bush,” then-New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in a piece titled “The I-Can’t-Believe-I’m-a-Hawk Club.”
In 2007, Matthew Yglesias, then a blogger for The Atlantic, wrote of the by-then-bitter feeling of having read Pollack’s book and become “convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn’t actually have).”
2020: Pollack told New York Times reporters that assassinating Soleimani means that “Iraqi politicians will be less fearful of Iran and more willing to listen to the Americans.” The Iranians in Iraq, Pollack said, will be unsure of what to do next without their leader.
Advertisement
Pollack’s predictions didn’t hold up for long. Two days after the Times published its story, Iraq’s parliament voted to expel US troops from the country. The resolution was backed by Shiite lawmakers while several Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers boycotted the parliamentary meeting. Two days after the vote, Iran launched missiles at bases in Iraq that house U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the Soleimani strike.
Joe Lieberman
2003: Then-Democratic Sen. Lieberman was one of the lawmakers who voted to authorise the Iraq War and who steadfastly defended his position long after it became clear that the invasion was a mistake. “I think the world is a lot better off, notwithstanding all the problems in Iraq,” Lieberman told MSNBC in 2015 after the Islamic State took control of parts of that country. “I think the world is better off and the region is better off and the people of Iraq are better off.”
2020: Assassinating Soleimani was “bold and unconventional,” Lieberman wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticising Democrats for not sufficiently praising the move. Killing Soleimani won’t lead to more war, Lieberman argued. On the contrary, he wrote, it will show Iranian leaders (and also North Korea’s Kim Jong Un) “our willingness to kill” and give them “much to fear.”
Barry McCaffrey
2003: McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general and drug czar in the Clinton administration was part of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that parroted Bush administration talking points and encouraged the public to support regime change. Days before the invasion, NBC’s Tom Brokaw asked him if he had any concerns about going to war. “Well, I don’t think I have any real serious ones,” McCaffrey said.
2020: “The days ahead are going to be perilous because our only good response at this point is an overwhelming dominance of US air and naval power that can be employed against the Iranian homeland,” McCaffrey said on MSNBC after the Iranian missile attacks on the US bases in Iraq. “When that goes, we’re really into high-intensity warfare with the Iranians.”
Advertisement
Tom Friedman
2003: The Iraq War was “unquestionably worth doing,” Friedman, a New York Times columnist, told talk show host Charlie Rose in a May 2003 interview. According to Friedman, there was a “terrorism bubble” in the 1990s that led to the Sept. 11 attacks. Saddam Hussein was not involved in those attacks, but that appears to have been irrelevant to Friedman.
“What we needed to do was to go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble,” Friedman told Rose. “We needed to go over there basically and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it. ... What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, ‘Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? ... Well, suck on this.’”
2020: “One day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran” for killing Soleimani, Friedman predicted in a New York Times column. He went on to admit that he had no idea what would happen next in the Middle East, but what he did know was that Mother Nature would punish the region with climate change for “celebrating self-promoting military frauds.”
Bret Stephens
2003: As editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, Stephens named Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz the newspaper’s 2003 “Man of the [Jewish] Year” for authoring the “doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin U.S. action against other rogue states.” In 2008, Stephens declared victory in Iraq and bragged about winning a $100 bet with political scientist Francis Fukuyama over whether Iraq would be a “mess” five years after the invasion.
2020: The problem with Trump’s Iran policy is that he didn’t use military action sooner, Stephens argued in a New York Times column. Going forward, the U.S. should show a willingness to negotiate over Iran’s “regional aggression and expanding nuclear program” in exchange for sanctions relief, Stephens advised, failing to mention that Trump had willfully tanked a similar agreement. The U.S. should also threaten “deliberately disproportionate retaliation to any Iranian aggression, no matter whether it’s carried out by Iran or its proxies, and no matter whether it aims at us or our allies,” Stephens concluded.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Iranians, Iranian Americans Detained At US-Canada Border Fear Crackdown On Civil Rights

LOADING ERROR LOADING
It was a trip Heidi must have taken over a hundred times.
At least once a month for the last 10 years, Heidi, an Iranian with a US green card, has driven through Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington, to visit her mother in Vancouver, Canada, before returning home.
When Heidi and her girlfriend — both Nexus cardholders who are qualified for expedited processing — crossed back into the U.S. that Saturday afternoon, they received an ominous orange slip that told them to exit their vehicle for additional screening. US officials took their passports and Heidi’s green card away and questioned them for hours.
Advertisement
Heidi, who is using a pseudonym in this story for fear of retaliation, was questioned about her place of birth, her current occupation, whether she had ever touched a gun, where she studied, and her political views on the latest escalation between the United States and Iran, she told HuffPost.
Mere days before Heidi and her girlfriend’s detention, General Qassem Soleimani, a senior Iranian commander and one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East, had been killed in an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq at the direction of President Donald Trump, heightening tensions between the two nations and the wider Middle Eastern region.
Before the news broke, Heidi had no idea who Soleimani even was.
Heidi and her girlfriend were two of more than 100 people of Iranian descent who say they were held without explanation at the Blaine border crossing — in some cases for at least 11 hours.
Customs and Border Protection has since denied those accusations, telling HuffPost in an emailed statement that the “social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false.”
Advertisement
A CBP official told HuffPost that the federal agency was currently “operating with an enhanced posture at its ports of entry” due to the “current threat environment.” The official also attributed the long wait times at Blaine — which CBP said averaged two hours and extended up to four hours — to increased volume and reduced staff.
Lawmakers and other political leaders have since condemned the reported detentions. Former presidential candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee tweeted that “CBP’s denial of these reports are simply not credible.” Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-Wash.) also noted that the detentions were “a result of some sort of directive,” which CBP has denied. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for president, demanded that CBP clarify its policies and explain why those individuals were stopped at the border.
“What happened was real. They can’t say I wasn’t there for 11 hours on the hard concrete floor. That was real. It happened.” - Crystal, 24-year-old Iranian American
The reports from the US-Canada border have raised red flags for civil rights advocates, who say the detentions set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of Iranians in the US, as well as other Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim minority communities.
The pattern is familiar. Each time the U.S. has entered into a military conflict in the region ― whether in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan ― those marginalised communities in the U.S. suffer the consequences, including a crackdown on their civil rights.
Advertisement
“If we can’t count even on our local leadership to protect us as Americans, we are barrelling down a very dangerous path and our civil liberties really are threatened right now. This is not a joke,” said Mana Mostatabi, the communications director at the National Iranian American Council, a nonprofit based in Washington, DC, that advocates for Iranian Americans.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has since opened an investigation into the treatment of Iranian Americans at U.S. ports of entry in response to a complaint from NIAC. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is also exploring legal action to find whether the federal government sent any national directive to local authorities in Blaine.
“We want to send a strong message to the Trump administration that behaviour like this won’t be tolerated,” said Masih Fouladi, the executive director of CAIR Washington.
Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. airstrike on Baghdad International Airport last week. Wana News Agency / Reuters
Just days prior to the reports from the US-Canada border, law enforcement across the U.S., including in Los Angeles, home to the world’s largest Iranian population outside of Iran, called on residents to report suspicious activity ― a message that critics said only promotes discriminatory profiling and surveillance of already vulnerable communities.
Advertisement
“What that does do is [scare] Iranian-Americans. It’s sowing fears and really opening up an already vulnerable community to additional abuse,” Mostatabi added.
Abed Ayoub, the legal and policy director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, warned of increased harassment and discriminatory policies by federal agencies, pointing to the precedent set by past US administrations.
In 1979, former President Jimmy Carter ordered the deportation of undocumented Iranian students during the diplomatic standoff between the United States and Iran at the time. President George W. Bush created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which targeted foreign nationals from 25 countries in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq War. More recently, Trump signed the 2017 executive order that prevents individuals from several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, from entering the United States.
“I do anticipate that this will get worse because of history,” said Ayoub, who added that concerns now are very similar to those in the past, when Iranians, Muslims, Arabs and South Asians were also targeted by discriminatory policies and practices. Ayoub’s organisation has been receiving calls from members of the Shia Muslim community who are spending their winter breaks on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq and Iran and are concerned about the possibility of harassment and detention upon their return to the United States.
“When you begin to explicitly target based on national origin and profile based on religion, it is bad precedent and will lead to more harsh programs put in place,” Ayoub told HuffPost. “Nothing about profiling and nothing about these practices makes our country safer.”
Advertisement
“I do anticipate that this will get worse because of history.” - Abed Ayoub, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Crystal, a 24-year-old Iranian American medical student, was traveling back to the United States with her brother and her parents after a family vacation in Vancouver when she and her family were detained for more than 11 hours. Like Heidi, the family was forced to hand over passports and asked the same series of intrusive questions about their occupations, political views and travel.
“What happened was real. They can’t say I wasn’t there for 11 hours on the hard concrete floor. That was real. It happened,” Crystal said on a call to reporters. HuffPost is withholding her last name out of concern for retaliation from the US government.
While detained, Crystal’s father pleaded for the release of his children, who are American-born citizens, but an official refused. Crystal also missed a connecting flight while sitting in a room with at least 60 other Iranians.
“I feel betrayed because honestly, I’ve always considered myself an American. In fact, I consider myself more American than Iranian. But I never felt less American than I did [that day],” Crystal said.
Advertisement
“Even though I was born here, I’m a citizen here, I pay taxes here, I work here, I go to school here, in the end, it didn’t mean anything to them. They neglected my rights,” said Crystal. “It doesn’t even matter if you’re a citizen or not, if you have associations with being Iranian, apparently that’s suspicious.”
It wasn’t until 1:30 a.m. that Crystal and her family were permitted to reenter the United States, without any formal explanation for their detention.
Meanwhile, Heidi and her girlfriend were not released until 4:45 a.m. on Sunday morning. When she received notice that she was free to leave, she could not stop crying ― overwhelmed with exhaustion, relief and anger. She immediately called her mother back in Vancouver and explained what had occurred.
“I wish you guys had given birth to us any other place other than Iran,” she told her.
In the aftermath of it all, Heidi could not help but reflect on a Persian proverb: “When there is a fire, wet and dry wood all burn together.” She’s worried about what will come next.
“We left Iran because we couldn’t be free and speak our mind. But now I am afraid to give you my name because of the consequence,” said Heidi. “After this, anything can be expected [from this administration]. Once they take away the rights of one group, the rest of us are not going to be safe.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--Justin Bieber Announces He Has Lyme Disease After 'Rough Couple Of Years'

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Justin Bieber has revealed that he suffers from Lyme disease as well as a “serious case” of chronic infectious mononucleosis.
On Wednesday, the singer shared his medical condition on Instagram, and directly addressed derogatory comments about his appearance and health.
Advertisement
“While a lot of people kept saying justin Bieber looks like shit, on meth etc. they failed to realize I’ve been recently diagnosed with Lyme disease, not only that but had a serious case of chronic mono which affected my, skin, brain function, energy, and overall health,” he wrote.
He added that he was “getting the right treatment” after what he described as a “rough couple years”.
According to the Center for Disease Control, Lyme disease “is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected blacklegged ticks” and can usually be treated with antibiotics.
Advertisement
Typical symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue and skin rash. Left untreated, the disease can spread to joints, the heart and the nervous system.
Justin mentioned in the Instagram post that he will be discussing his health struggles in his upcoming YouTube Originals docuseries, Justin Bieber: Seasons.
Both the series and the announcement come on the heels of Yummy, his first solo single in four years.
Shortly after his announcement, Justin was defended by his wife Hailey Bieber, who hit out at those “trying to downplay the severity of Lyme disease”.
“Please do your research and listen to the stories of people who have suffered with it for years,” she urged. “Making fun of and belittling a disease you don’t understand is never the way, all it takes is educating yourself.”
Advertisement
For those who are trying to downplay the severity of Lyme disease. Please do your research and listen to the stories of people who have suffered with it for years. Making fun of and belittling a disease you don’t understand is never the way, all it takes is educating yourself. — Hailey Bieber (@haileybieber) January 8, 2020


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-01-09--No Surprise, 2019 Was The Second-Hottest Year On Record

LOADING ERROR LOADING
European researchers on Wednesday said 2019 was the second-hottest year in recorded history, the latest bellwether as activists and scientists urge dramatic action to rein in carbon emissions and the fallout from climate change.
The findings, published by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), a monitoring agency backed by the European Union, underscore a series of bleak reports published in recent months: The world is getting hotter, ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are rising more and animals are dying at a breakneck pace.
Advertisement
“2019 has been another exceptionally warm year, in fact the second warmest globally in our dataset, with many of the individual months breaking records,” Carlo Buontempo, the head of C3S, said in a statement.
Only 2016 was hotter, but just by a razor-thin margin of 0.04 degree Celsius. The 2010s were also the warmest decade on record, researchers noted.
The results come as another environmental tragedy, a string of severe bushfires in Australia, have cast a sharp lens on the effects of climate change not just decades in the future but right now. The country has been on fire for more than a month, scorching 12 million acres so far. At least 24 people have been killed, more than 2,600 homes have been destroyed and some experts estimate more than a billion animals have perished in the blazes.
A series of catastrophic wildfires in Australia have prompted renewed calls for climate action throughout the country. Wolter Peeters/The Sydney Morning Herald via Getty Images
Advertisement
Though climate change doesn’t cause wildfires, it can exacerbate conditions, experts say. This year’s fire season in Australia has been particularly hot and dry, and 2019 was the country’s hottest and driest on record. (In the US, California also experienced a devastating fire season last year, and the state’s fire agency has said climate change is a “key driver” of a longer, more intense fire season.)
“The past five years have been the five warmest on record [globally]; the last decade has been the warmest on record: These are unquestionably alarming signs,” Jean-Noël Thépaut, the director of ECMWF Copernicus, said in a statement.
But though scientists have been issuing increasingly bleak warnings about the rate of global carbon emissions and the pace of climate change, the planet has largely failed to rein in the burning of fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change.
Researchers released forecasts last month that the planet would release more carbon emissions than ever before in 2019. Officials have urged the world to wean itself off fossil fuels by 2050 in order to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the threshold scientists say the planet must stay beneath to avert the worst effects of climate change.
Activists, such as Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, have called for dramatic action to scale back carbon emissions. Richard Drew/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Even at that level of warming, the planet would see a slew of dramatic effects, including the deaths of 70% to 90% of the planet’s coral reefs.
Despite the bleak news, 2019 did bring renewed attention and demands that world leaders address climate change, including a worldwide series of demonstrations spearheaded by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.