UK court puts last-minute block on a deal to hand Chagos islands to Mauritius
The U.K. has agreed to hand Mauritius the Indian Ocean archipelago , which is home to a strategically important naval and bomber base on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia. The U.K. would then lease back the base for at least 99 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explained: How much is the government paying to house asylum seekers in hotels?
Anti-immigration protests have surged in recent weeks, with some targeting hotels used to house asylum seekers, sparking violence and prompting multiple arrests. Amid the demonstrations, misleading claims about the cost of accommodating migrants have been spreading widely online. But what does it actually cost to house asylum seekers in hotels — and how are false figures shaping public anger? Misleading figures spread online One focal point has been the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf, East London, which has witnessed clashes between anti-immigration protesters and anti-racism demonstrators, leading to the arrest of two people on 8 August. Social media posts and viral messages have claimed that housing asylum seekers in hotels costs the government between £200 and £500 per night. However, there is no evidence to support these figures. One expert claims these kinds of falsehoods are 'most likely spread with a strategic purpose in mind'. The real cost The Home Office told The Independent that the Britannia Hotel costs £81 per night to house asylum seekers. In March 2025, the average cost per night for a hotel room used to accommodate asylum seekers was £118.87 — down from £162.16 in March 2023. Across all hotels, this equates to around £5.77m per day, down from £8.3m per day the previous year. Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of Bristol, told The Independent that false information spreads because divisive posts attract more attention from readers. He said: 'Social media algorithms favour information that is outrage-evoking because it generates more audience engagement – hence making more money for the platforms – and in consequence disinformation often has an advantage over factual content and spreads faster and further. On top of that, the goal is, of course, to incite hatred and what better way to do that than to spread outrageous falsehoods.' These misleading claims are not just a matter of numbers. Experts warn they could amplify public anger and stoke already high tensions. 'There is now very clear and strong evidence that online misinformation can cause real-world harms. For example, last year's riots in the UK targeted mosques based on the false rumour that the perpetrator of a heinous crime was a Muslim refugee – he was not, he was a native-born British citizen,' Mr Lewandowsky said. Court ruling piles pressure on Starmer Pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer after Epping Forest District Council secured an interim High Court injunction to ban migrants from being housed at The Bell Hotel after weeks of protests at the site. The council argued the site had become a 'feeding ground for unrest' following a spate of violent protests that left several police officers injured. On 4 August, Starmer condemned the violence as 'far-right thuggery' and warned that those responsible would face the 'full force of the law.' For now, one of many challenges for ministers will be to ensure the facts about the costs of asylum hotels are reaching the public.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
JD Vance raises $4M for Republican National Committee during UK trip
WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance raked in $4 million for the Republican National Committee during his jaunt to the United Kingdom last week, adding more cash to the GOP pot ahead of next year's midterms, The Post has learned. The VP met with several RNC donors living overseas as he traveled across Britain, including stops in the Cotswolds and Scotland, according to a source familiar with the discussions. Federal rules allow Americans living or travelling abroad to contribute to political organizations and campaigns. The UK trip was the latest fundraising sojourn Vance has made since being tapped as RNC finance chair in March. Vice President JD Vance speaks during a meeting with Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy at Chevening House in Kent, England, Friday, Aug. 8, 2025. AP The veep previously raised money in Houston, Dallas, Manhattan, Atlanta, Nashville, San Diego, Nantucket, Jackson Hole, and Big Sky, Montana. Vance's first big donor dinner was held in New York City where tickets ran as high as $250,000 per head, The Post previously reported. He then raked in $3 million at his fundraiser in Nantucket last month. Those close to the White House believe Vance's RNC post, an unprecedented position for a vice president to hold, will boost him in his near-certain bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2028. Trump told reporters Aug. 5 that Vance was the 'most likely' heir to the 45th and 47th president's Make America Great Again movement. U.S. Vice President JD Vance plays golf at Trump Turnberry golf course, during his holiday, in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, August 14, 2025. REUTERS 'Last year, President Trump won an historic election victory, taking back the White House and helping Republicans regain control of the Senate and retain control of the House,' Vance said in a statement at the time of his appointment. 'But to fully enact the MAGA mandate and President Trump's vision that voters demanded, we must keep and grow our Republican majorities in 2026.' During his visit, Vance also spoke to British officials and successfully convinced the UK to drop its demand to access personal cloud data storage, which could have impacted the privacy of American citizens. On Aug. 8, the 41-year-old went trout fishing with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy in England ahead of a discussion of US-UK relations, Gaza and Ukraine.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When rights disappear, so does your financial security
How does politics directly impact your wallet? In part one of this two-part episode of Living Not So Fabulously, journalist Jonathan Capehart connects equality to economic insecurity. From the Supreme Court's review of Obergefell v. Hodges and its potential to unravel financial protections for same-sex couples, to the hidden costs of drafting contracts and legal documents if marriage rights are rolled back. Capehart also explains his exit from The Washington Post after 18 years, and why career choices must balance money and full episodes of Living Not So Fabulously, listen on your favorite podcast platform or watch on our website. Yahoo Finance's Living Not So Fabulously is produced by Dennis Golin. There's this perception that same-sex couples are wildly rich, especially especially same-sex male couples. And we have to remember that most of, most of the people in our community, as in most Americans, are not wealthy. Welcome to the not so fabulously, where unfiltered truth meets your bottom line with a faint sound of the Wizard of Oz soundtrack in the background. Jonathan Capehart is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, MSNBC anchor, and former Washington Post opinion writer known for his sharp political insight authenticity. As a black openly gay voice in American media, Jonathan has built a career speaking truth with style. In his new memoir, Yet Here I Am, Lessons from a Black Man's Search for Home is a powerful reflection on identity, resilience, and fightinghome. We became fans of Jonathan andUh, because he and David Brooks have probably the most sane debates of political debates each Friday night on PBS Newshour. So we're super fans and we're super excited forthis interview. Exactly. It's like having your daily politics in today's environment with a little bit of chamomile to the show, Jonathan. Hi Jon David, thank you very much. I feel like I should have a teacup we actually have. Oh, it's wonderful to be here. Thank you. Of course, we're definitely gonna cover your memoir here in just a moment, but there is just so much news coming at us at every single day, um, we'd be remiss to not at least cover some of the the headlines for today, especially since that that today is the day following when it was widely reported that in this fall Supreme Court of the United States will consider for the first time whether to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges as former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis is arguing that decision violates her First Amendment protections and extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment due process protections was egregiously wrong. If the court were to overturn Obergefell, what would that mean for existing same-sex married couples, and what do you see for marriage equality going forward? Um, well, first, to answer your, your question, if they were to overturn Obergefell, um, that would render your marriage, my marriage, and millions of, um, same-sex marriages around the country null and void. And we would go back to the arrangements couples like ours had toGet into legal contracts to, you know, ensure that, you know, our partners were covered, that our children were covered if we, if we had children, that inheritance rights were, um, were covered and, um, and honored. So it would be, it would be not just a, a but a legalbacktrack. So can you clarify something for me? When and how would Biden's respect, respect for Marriage Act kick in? What is that, would that then mean all these trigger laws would go into place in some states and others of us who aren't necessarily in one of those states would still have our marriage respected? And, and you know what, John, you raise a very good question, and sadly, this is what Vacation Brain does to you. I forgot about the Respect for Marriage Act, and the reason why Congress did that was because, as a result of the overturning of Roe, Democrats saw what was coming. Um, I remembered the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Harris, saw what was coming, and so they pushed to get this done. So you raise a very, a very good point. Um, will the Respect for Marriage in place our marriages. Will, will we have to jump through all those hoops I just mentioned before as a result of this act of Congress, but I have to also remember that it also depends on how the Supreme Court decides this case that they're about to hear. They could decide it in such a way that they might, might render the Respect for Marriage Act null and void. We just don't know. Mm. Well, that's scary. Yeah. So how do you see that playing out for, for individuals? I mean, so much of our financial security is wrapped up in our marriage. I mean, that just creates utter chaos, um, for, for so many millions of households. I mean, I know you already shared what the result would be, but me trying to digest that is a littlechallenging. Yeah, I mean, what, what's going to happen is, you know, in, I remember in the before times, before I had a super long term partner, a husband, um, where I didn't have to think about, well, gee, power of attorney, um, you know, if I'm in the hospital, are you considered family? Do I have to put in a a legal document that you are family and you are allowed to be in the hospital in the emergency rooms? Those are all the that same-sex couples had to do and certainly in the 90s, in the early 2000s, just to have their, not just their, their relationships respected um just by people, but by the law, but to guarantee that their wishes would be followed out because they have not the law behind them, but signed documents, contracts, legally binding contracts that would force people to respect their relationships, our relationships. Yeah, and you, you think about that, there's such a huge financial burden, especially on families that may be of at an income level where going to an attorney and spending 234 $5000 to draft a will, a trust, power of attorney documents, all of these various medical documents, all of that would be a financial burden that they're not able to take on. And so they don't get those same protections, whereas inIndividuals who may be at a higher socioeconomic level would be able to engage those protections and it also sounds like it might be a boon for for lawyers. We want to make sure that the lawyers that we are engaging, if we do, are ones that actually do support our rights so that we're not giving money to those who don't. Right. And you know, 11 more thing, and I think it bears repeating every time. There is this perception, um, and I understand the irony of me saying this, given where I am. There is this perception that same-sex couples are wildly rich, especially especially same-sex male couples. And we have to remember that most of, most of the people in our community, as in most Americans, are not that's why Obergefell was so important. It gave to every couple the ability to protect themselves and to lend respect and dignity to their relationships. And to your point, um, to your point, David, um,If Obergerel were to go away, it's going to be those same-sex couples with the means and the resources who'll be able to engage those attorneys to be able to help protect their relationships. Absolutely. Yeah, one moment, Jonathan, we're gonna take a quick break back to Living Not So Fabulously. We're back talking with the author of the new book, Yet Here I Am Lessons from a Black Man's Search for Home, political journalist Jonathan Capehart. So you recently left The Washington Post. Would you mind sharing with our listeners and viewers, um, why you made that decision? And, and I'm also curious how, what your feelings were actually like how hard was that decision? I mean, because that's a pretty prominent role to have. Um, so what were you thinking at that time when you decided to say now is my time to leave? Well, in some, in some ways it was an easy decision because, um, you know, Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, decided that the direction of the opinion page should be, should focus on personal liberties and free um when he made that decision, our editor David Shipley it became clear over time that the way I write and the subjects I write about would not those in in those twin pillars. So, um,I sat back after he resigned and we were told, you know, let's just take it day by day until the new editor is named. Well, the new editor was named and he he is, you know, this is the mission. And then he said something in his video that became, there were a series of red flags, but this was the biggest red flag where he said, we are not going to um dictate to you how you about things. We're not going to preach ideology. Well, if you're paying attention to conservative and far right, um, writers, that language is basically code for if you write about race or other things around there that that's gonna be, that's gonna be a problem. And then in an email that he sent his on his first day, he said, you know, we are going to be umOptimistic and patriotic in looking I just thought, you know, patriotism doesn't demand that we be relentlessly positive about the country. Patriotism demands that we hold a mirror up to the country when the country and her people and her president are not living up to the words written down by the is also patriotism. Now I should also, I also want to 0.1 thing Jeff Bezos did on the opinion pages, that is his right as owner of the paper. That is the one part of the paper where the owner of the paper and the publisher of the paper have a right to dictate how um the editorial should sound and the columnists who should be writing and what they should be writing about. So I don't begrudge Jeff Bezos or Will at all, any of their decisions, those are their decisions. when they sent out an email to the entire opinion section, um, hey, this is our this is our new plan, and if you don't like it, we're offered you, you can have a entire opinion section, the entire video section, um, and anyone at the post who had been at the post for 10 years or buyouts. And so in the end, I had to take a step back and look, it was like, you know what?This, if it was a hard decision because I'd been there 18 years, 5 months and 16 days, by the time I walked out by the time of my last day, was a hard thing to do, but in a lot of ways they made it changing the direction and quite honestly, like, here's a bag of cash. Go. So and so I went, but I, I left, um, like a lot of people at the post, so much talent, so much experience, history, know-how, walked out of the walked out of the door because the leadership of the paper said, please that's what I think made it so hard for a lot of people. We both have follow-up questions. Do you want to go first? Well, I was just gonna point out before you said they, they made it easy for us by handing us a bag of cash. I think that that's, that's theThat's again the financial, um, the, the benefit of the financial ability, right? You probably are yourself in a financial state where you can weather some of that, but the fact that they also gave you some cash to help you weather some of that, I think it's something that a lot of people should be paying attention to right now. Are there options out there that you should be looking at that help you leave a toxic situation? Right. And you know, the way they, the way they structured it is it's literally, they don't hand you a bag of cash, they put it into a retirement account. So when you are at this advanced age that I am in, having that go to a retirement account actually is not so bad. Um, and so, you know, thankfully, the the big thing that made it all made this decision also easier is that, you know, I'm stillWith PBS, but I'm also still an anchor at MSNBC. And long before leaving the post, my, my position at know, took on more prominence in terms of, you know, how I structured my so, um, now no longer having the Washington Post and just, you know, primarily focused on, you know, the weekend, which is Saturday and Sunday, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Eastern, um, you know, is also something that, that also made the decision a little easier than, um, it might have been had I not had, as we say in the black community, 50/11 jobs. So my last question before we wrap up the interview for you, it might be a little bit too early, um, but who do you have on your eye in your eye as the Republican and the Democratic? You had to know it was coming, uh, for 2028. Oh no, no, I knew, I knew it was coming, and I'm gonna give you a mini lecture because this is one of my army stop focusing on is about 12 political lifetimes from now. People need to be focused on 26. They need to be focused on the midterm elections, and if people don't like what's happening in the country,That is their opportunity to go to the ballot box and change the change the political dynamics in Washington, change the political dynamics in their state houses, uh, who sits in the governor's chair, if there are gubernatorial races, state legislative races, 26 is the opportunity to send, to send a message. And soYou know, I, IEven when we, you know, there's a story and I was like, oh, we should do something on on 20 this person is talked about as the someone who's going to run for president. OK, fine, great, let, let him run for president. I'm more worried about whether Hakeem Jeffries is going to be the next Speaker of the house or if Speaker Johnson is going to remain speaker, because that has greater implications for the country than speculating whetherPete or Kamala or or Gavin or Josh or JD or um I'm missing some names, but I think you know where I'm going with all the speculation about who, who's going to run for president. So my follow-up question was going to be to that, and I think it still applies, especially with what's going on in Texas and now maybe California and and New York. Are we gonna have a 2026 and especially a 2028 election? I mean, do you think there's a real risk of there being some emergency that just doesn't allow that to happen? 00 yeah, there's definitely a real risk. I was warning about this during the campaign. So was Joe Biden when he was at the top of the ticket, so was Kamala Harris when she was at the top of the ticket, so were Democrats up and down the chain when they were running for their respective offices, cause you, if you, anyone who was paying attention to what he was saying,What he did the first time he was in office, you could where we are right what was going to happen. And so the fact that we're even having this conversation about whether there will be a 26 that's not, um, that's not a question that is as crazy as it might have seemed 5 years ago, or actually 10 years ago, um.I, I can see all the thing, I mean, even, you know, then when the National Guard was sent to Los Angeles.I immediately thought, hmm, OK, where, where else will he want to do this? And now he's sent, sent them to Washington. I live in is not quote worse than Baghdad, as Stephen Miller said the other day. There's not rampant, out of control, violent crime. Crime is down 26% in Washington this year, 2025, the first half of 2025 over last year, and last year was a 30 year are you sending the National Guard to Washington, sir?I think we know, I think we know one, and so it is my hope that people have their eyes wide that they at stake and what could happen. And in the end,You know, people need to understand that.A lot of things that are happening here right now are things that have happened in other countries. And when they've happened in other countries, we here in the United States would tut tut and wag our fingers and write these pieces about how lawless and banana republicy and you know, no rule of law, and no law and order and all those things. Well, a lot of those things are now happening here and I think the American people need to umAs my mom used to say, get your mind what could happen. David and I could have this conversation all day, and I know you don't have that time. Thank you so much. Well, technically, this is my Sunday, so I, you know, I've got all the time in the world, all the time in the world. Well, thank you for spending your Sunday with us. We really appreciate you sharing your, your wisdom, as well as a background in your money stories. Uh, John, David, thank you so much. This was fun. So we're rightly excited about this particular interview because it's going to be the first time we actually have a two parter, right? Look out for that second part of the interview coming in the future. Thank you for tuning in. If you like what you see, scan the QR code to follow Yahoo Finance podcast for more videos and expert insight. And until next time, stay content was not intended to be financial advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional financial services. Related Videos Blink Charging stock tumbles: CEO talks earnings miss & what's next Tech sell-off, crypto signals, bond bounce: Market takeaways Why this economist says Fed's 'not going to cut in September' 5 years ago, Apple became the first to reach a $2T market cap Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
