Two killed in Russian air strike on Kyiv, city officials say
In a statement on Telegram, city military administrator Tymur Tkachenko said the death toll was likely to rise, adding that the strike had caused damage in more than two-dozen locations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A measure added into a massive U.S. defense spending bill in recent weeks will, if passed, ask the Pentagon to determine whether one of Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab display suppliers should be listed as a Chinese military company. Being on the list does not block companies from doing business in the U.S. but will in coming years block them from being part of the U.S. military's supply chain. The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, was approved in July by key committees in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The final bill, considered a "must-pass" because it funds the U.S. military, is expected to become law later in the year. When the bill was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, a newly added amendment for the first time asked the U.S. Defense Department to consider, opens new tab whether BOE Technology Group Co , listed on Apple's official suppliers list, should be added to a list of firms that allegedly aid China's military. BOE and Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think-tank, said Beijing had offered billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and loans to help firms such as BOE dominate global panel production. "This creates a single‑source vulnerability that could be easily exploited to disrupt or degrade U.S. military operations, not to mention undermine commercial supply chains, during a conflict or period of heightened bilateral tension with Beijing," Singleton added. A study published last month by New York-based NERA Economic Consulting and commissioned by BOE's U.S. subsidiary found that the display industry, which includes major Korean players such as Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, remains highly competitive, with no single player capable of significantly affecting global prices. "There is no credible risk of a supply chain disruption by mainland China display manufacturers," the report said.
BreakingNews.ie
8 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
The Sun
8 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
