Belarus journalist is convicted of treason and jailed for 10 years as crackdown on dissent continues
Danil Palianski, who worked for several independent news agencies, was sentenced on July 25, but the trial's outcome was only revealed Friday by the Belarusian Association of Journalists. In addition to the prison sentence, Palianski was fined the equivalent of about $7,000.
'Belarus has already become the black hole of Europe, where people are judged for words and thoughts,' said BAJ leader Andrei Bastunets.
Palianski, who was detained in September, is one of 37 journalists behind bars in Belarus.
His jailing is part of a sustained crackdown on government critics after unprecedented mass protests following Lukashenko's disputed election on Aug. 9, 2020. Human rights groups say authorities have arrested more than 65,000 people, and hundreds of thousands more have fled the country in fear of persecution.
There are about 1,187 political prisoners in Belarus, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate and peace activist Ales Bialiatski, according to the human rights group Viasna, which he founded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Landlord database: How controversial scheme will work - and what buy-to-let owners and tenants need to know
Landlords may soon need to sign up to a national database that will be visible to councils and tenants, if a controversial piece of legislation goes through. The rental sector is on the cusp of the biggest shake-up to date when the Renters Rights Bill becomes law either later this year or early in 2026. One of its key reforms is a national private rented sector database that will require every landlord in England to register and list details of every property they let. The aim is to give local authorities and tenants a single source of information about who owns and manages each rental property. Landlords who fail to register will be unable to legally let their properties and face fines for not doing so. And they could even be subject to a landlord ombudsman, which will handle complaints from tenants and could force them to pay compensation. While it is possible this element of the bill could be removed or watered down before it passes into law, some landlords are concerned about the change - with some worried it will become a 'Trustpilot-style' review website. 'Once the PRS database goes live, enforcement will be swift and visible,' says Allison Thompson, national lettings managing director at Leaders. 'Tenants will be able to search the database to check whether a landlord is properly registered and whether they have received any fines or penalties. 'Being proactive now will reduce the risk of fines and help landlords maintain a positive reputation in the market.' The bill will also create a single landlord ombudsman that all private landlords will also need to join. 'The ombudsman will provide an independent route to resolve complaints about landlord service and property standards,' adds Thompson. 'All landlords, even those managing properties themselves, must join the ombudsman, which will have the power to order landlords to apologise, provide information, take remedial action, or pay compensation. 'Landlords who fail to comply with the ombudsman's decisions could face enforcement action, including fines and potential removal from the database.' How will the landlord database work? Landlords will be required to provide their name, contact details and the address of every property they let. Registration is expected to be renewed periodically, with fees applying each time. Local authorities will be able to issue civil penalties for failure to register while renters will be able to check if their landlord is legally registered. 'Designed properly, the database should make it easy for the vast majority of compliant landlords to demonstrate to tenants and prospective tenants that their properties meet all required standards,' says Chris Norris, chief policy officer at the National Residential Landlords Association. 'As a minimum, gas and electricity safety certificates should be fully digitised so they can be easily uploaded onto the database, alongside existing Energy Performance Certificates. 'The database should also include a signed declaration by a landlord which confirms that a property meets the requirements of the planned decent homes standard for the sector.' What will happen to landlords who don't comply? For those who fail to register, local authorities will have the power to issue civil penalties of up to £7,000 for a first offence and up to £40,000 for the most serious or repeated breaches. They will also be able to prevent unregistered landlords from legally letting their properties. Will it really be like Trustpilot? A database will raise some fears among landlords that they could find their reputations and properties made public, with tenants able to rank them in a similar way to Trustpilot where customers rate companies using a star system. 'It won't be a review site in the traditional sense and tenants won't be posting ratings - but in many ways, the database will likely have similar consequences,' says Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at property management software company Inventory Base. 'If you're fined or found to have breached legislation or are non-compliant, that information could be made searchable and then visible to prospective tenants. 'It becomes a public trust marker. Reputation will increasingly rest on a landlord's ability to stay compliant and proactive.' Chris Norris, chief policy officer at the National Residential Landlords Association also does not envisage the database allowing for ratings or reviews, though. He says: 'Whilst the Government has not yet outlined what it believes should be on the database, or the timeframes for its implementation, we do not anticipate it becoming a Trustpilot-style review site.' Will there also be a database for renters? The introduction of a landlord database may lead some landlords to ask why tenants won't be subject to the same type of scrutiny. After all, for every bad landlord, there are also reports of bad tenants who fail to look after properties or pay the rent. Hemming-Metcalfe says: 'It's understandable that landlords may feel the system is one-sided, especially when there's no formal database for tenants - who can be equally rogue when it comes to their conduct in rental properties. 'But in reality, landlords already have access to credit checks, references, and legal recourse. 'What we're seeing here is a rebalancing of the sector - one that gives tenants more visibility and landlords more responsibility. 'Fairness comes through transparency on both sides, so it could be seen as an opportunity to show you are not only a good landlord, but a fair and compliant one.' When will it come into force? The Renters Rights Bill is likely to come into force later this year or in early 2026. The advice, however, is to get prepared for the new rules now. 'While a definitive start date is still to be confirmed, the imminent introduction of the Renter's Rights Bill means landlords shouldn't wait for the legislation to come into force,' adds Hemming-Metcalfe. 'The database will likely be rolled out soon after, and enforcement is expected to be swift. 'As a landlord, now is the time to get your property records in order and ensure your processes are watertight.' How to find a new mortgage Borrowers who need a mortgage because their current fixed rate deal is ending, or they are buying a home, should explore their options as soon as possible. Buy-to-let landlords should also act as soon as they can. Quick mortgage finder links with This is Money's partner L&C > Mortgage rates calculator > Find the right mortgage for you What if I need to remortgage? Borrowers should compare rates, speak to a mortgage broker and be prepared to act. Homeowners can lock in to a new deal six to nine months in advance, often with no obligation to take it. Most mortgage deals allow fees to be added to the loan and only be charged when it is taken out. This means borrowers can secure a rate without paying expensive arrangement fees. Keep in mind that by doing this and not clearing the fee on completion, interest will be paid on the fee amount over the entire term of the loan, so this may not be the best option for everyone. What if I am buying a home? Those with home purchases agreed should also aim to secure rates as soon as possible, so they know exactly what their monthly payments will be. Buyers should avoid overstretching and be aware that house prices may fall, as higher mortgage rates limit people's borrowing ability and buying power. What about buy-to-let landlords Buy-to-let landlords with interest-only mortgages will see a greater jump in monthly costs than homeowners on residential mortgages. This makes remortgaging in plenty of time essential and our partner L&C can help with buy-to-let mortgages too. How to compare mortgage costs The best way to compare mortgage costs and find the right deal for you is to speak to a broker. This is Money has a long-standing partnership with fee-free broker L&C, to provide you with fee-free expert mortgage advice. Interested in seeing today's best mortgage rates? Use This is Money and L&Cs best mortgage rates calculator to show deals matching your home value, mortgage size, term and fixed rate needs. If you're ready to find your next mortgage, why not use L&C's online Mortgage Finder. It will search 1,000's of deals from more than 90 different lenders to discover the best deal for you. > Find your best mortgage deal with This is Money and L&C Be aware that rates can change quickly, however, and so if you need a mortgage or want to compare rates, speak to L&C as soon as possible, so they can help you find the right mortgage for you.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: European leaders urge pressure on Russia ahead of Trump-Putin talks
European leaders stressed the need to keep pressure on Moscow and protect Ukrainian and European security interests after Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin arranged to meet in Alaska next week. A joint statement from French, Italian, German, Polish, British and Finnish leaders and the president of the European commission welcomed the move but noted that the 'path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine' and that negotiations could take place only in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. It added: 'only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed'. They also said a resolution 'must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests', including 'the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity'. US vice-president JD Vance met British foreign secretary David Lammy and representatives of Ukraine and European allies on Saturday at Chevening House, a country mansion south-east of London, to discuss Trump's push for peace. A European official confirmed a counterproposal was put forward by European representatives at the Chevening meeting but declined to provide details. The Wall Street Journal said European officials had presented a counterproposal that included demands that a ceasefire must take place before any other steps are taken and that any territory exchange must be reciprocal, with firm security guarantees. 'You can't start a process by ceding territory in the middle of fighting,' it quoted one European negotiator as saying. The White House did not immediately respond when asked about the European counterproposals. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday rejected the idea that his country would give up land to end the war with Russia after Trump suggested a peace deal could include 'some swapping of territories.' Zelenskyy said Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Later, Zelenskyy called the Chevening meeting constructive: 'All our arguments were heard,' he said in his evening address to Ukrainians. 'The path to peace for Ukraine should be determined together and only together with Ukraine, this is key principle.' French leader Emmanuel Macron stressed the need for Ukraine to play a role in any negotiations: 'Ukraine's future cannot be decided without the Ukrainians, who have been fighting for their freedom and security for over three years now,' he wrote on X after what he said were calls with Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Starmer. 'Europeans will also necessarily be part of the solution, as their own security is at stake.' On Saturday two people died and 16 were wounded when a Russian drone hit a minibus in the suburbs of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, regional governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. Two others died after a Russian drone struck their car in the Zaporizhzhia region, according to regional governor Ivan Fedorov. Ukraine's air force said it intercepted 16 of the 47 Russian drones launched overnight, while 31 drones hit targets across 15 different locations. It also said it shot down one of the two missiles Russia deployed. Russia's defence ministry said its air defences shot down 97 Ukrainian drones over Russia and the Black Sea overnight and 21 more on Saturday morning.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As the world hurtles ever closer to nuclear oblivion, where is the opposition?
Nuclear weapons – their lethal menace, dark history and future spread – are back in the headlines again and, as usual, the news is worrying, bordering on desperate. Russia's decision last week to formally abandon the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty banning medium- and short-range nuclear missiles completes the demolition of a key pillar of global arms control. It will accelerate an already frantic nuclear arms race in Europe and Asia at a moment when US and Russian leaders are taunting each other like schoolboys. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has repeatedly threatened the west with nuclear weapons during his war in Ukraine. Last November, Russian forces fired their new Oreshnik hypersonic, nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile at Dnipro. It travels 'like a meteorite' at 10 times the speed of sound and can reach any city in Europe, Putin boasted – which, if true, is a clear INF violation. Moscow blames its decision to ditch the treaty on hostile Nato actions. Yet it has long bypassed it in practice, notably by basing missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic sea, and Belarus. That said, Russia has a point about Nato. Donald Trump first reneged on the INF treaty way back in 2018. The subsequent huge buildup of mainly US-produced nuclear-capable missiles, launchers, planes and bombs in European Nato states has understandably alarmed Moscow. It should alarm Europeans, too. In the 1980s, deployments of US Pershing and cruise missiles sparked passionate protests across the continent. In contrast, today's ominous tick-tocking of the Doomsday Clock, closer than ever to catastrophe at 89 seconds to midnight, is mostly accompanied by eerie silence. Trump's melodramatic claim last week to have moved US nuclear submarines closer to Russia came in response to crude threats from the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a notorious Putin stooge. It was another chilling moment. But this puerile standoff will have served a useful purpose if it alerts slumbering European public opinion to the growing risk of nuclear confrontation. Maybe people have grown complacent; maybe they have too many other worries. Maybe governments such as Britain's, suspected of secretly stashing US nuclear gravity bombs at an East Anglian airbase, are again failing to tell the truth. (The UK government refuses to say whether or not American nukes are now at RAF Lakenheath.) Whatever the reason, it falls to the children of the cold war – to the daughters of Greenham Common, to the heirs of ban-the-bomb protesters, to CND's indefatigable campaigners – to more loudly warn: this way lies extinction. Yet why is it that they alone sound the tocsin? It's all happening again, only this time it's worse, and everyone's a target. If unchecked, today's vastly more powerful nukes could turn the planet into a universal killing field. Last week's ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings should be seen as a warning as well as a reminder. The nuclear weapons buildup in Europe proceeds apace. The US already stores nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Now the UK, too, has offered facilities – and is buying nuclear-capable fighter jets. Germany will host Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles next year. The US is expanding missile bases in Poland and Romania. Nato countries such as Denmark and Norway have joined missile exercises aimed, for example, at establishing 'control' of the Baltic. All this is justified in the name of self-defence, principally against Putin's Russia. Likewise, Nato's decision in June to raise national defence budgets to 5% of GDP. The global picture is no less disturbing. The nine nuclear-armed states – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the US – spent $100.2bn, or $3,169 a second, on nuclear weapons last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) reported. That's up 11% on 2023. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget plan, the US, already by far the biggest spender, will increase funding for its nuclear forces, including the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, by 26% to $87bn. Doing its bit for global insecurity, China has more than doubled its nuclear stockpile since 2020, to 500 warheads. Who can doubt where all this is leading? For the first time since the cold war, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are being transformed into potential nuclear battlegrounds, with the difference, now, that atomic bombs and missiles are viewed not as deterrents but as offensive, war-winning weapons. The proliferation of lower-yield, tactical warheads supposedly makes 'limited' nuclear warfare possible. Once that red line is crossed, an unstoppable chain reaction may ensue. The collapse of arms-control agreements – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) will be next to lapse in February 2026 – is destroying safety nets. Signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are bound 'in good faith' to gradually disarm; instead, they are rapidly rearming. Dehumanised AI systems may raise the risk of accidental Armageddon. Rogue states such as Israel and North Korea constantly push the boundaries. Trump's impetuosity and Putin's psychosis increase the sense of living in a global shooting gallery. It might have been very different. In June 1945, a group of University of Chicago nuclear physicists led by James Franck told President Harry Truman that an unannounced atomic bomb attack on Japan was 'inadvisable'. Detonating the new weapon would trigger an uncontrollable worldwide arms race, they predicted. Their warnings were rejected, their report suppressed. Now, the UN is trying again. In line with the 2021 treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, a high-powered, international scientific panel was tasked last month with examining 'the physical effects and societal consequences' of nuclear war 'on a local, regional and planetary scale'. The challenge is formidable, the outcome uncertain. But someone, somehow, somewhere must call a halt to the madness. It is still just possible to hope that, unlike in 1945, wiser counsels will prevail. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
