British Teenager Reported Missing In Thailand Arrested In Georgia On Drug Charges
Ms Cully has been charged with illegally purchasing, possessing, and importing large quantities of narcotics, including marijuana. According to Georgian authorities, if convicted, she could face up to 20 years in prison or life imprisonment.
A statement read: "B.K., born in 2006, is charged with illegally purchasing and storing a particularly large amount of narcotics, illegally purchasing and storing the narcotic drug marijuana, and illegally importing it into Georgia. The committed crime envisions up to 20 years or life imprisonment."
According to local media, Bella May Culley was arrested at Tbilisi airport with 34 hermetically sealed packages containing marijuana and 20 packages of hashish in her possession. During her initial court hearing, Cully remained silent, and she was subsequently sent to a pre-trial detention facility for women in Rustavi, as reported by her lawyer.
Notably, Bella May Culley is the great-granddaughter of John Cook, a former Labour MP who represented Stockton North for 27 years and served as a deputy speaker of the House of Commons. John Cook died in January 2012 at the age of 76 due to lung cancer.
The 18-year-old, who recently completed a nursing course at Middlesbrough College, visited the tropical islands of Palawan and Panay. On April 16, she shared a TikTok video from the Philippines, captioned: "Needed a hug but instead made the biggest decision of my life and found peace in another country's culture and way of life." On May 3, she travelled to Thailand, where she stayed until her disappearance the following Saturday. During her trips, she posted videos and photos of snorkelling, exploring caves, and encountering turtles. Her final posts were on May 9, one day before she was reported missing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Air India 171 plane crash: Victim families who hired US law firm to file RTI plea for flight recorder data, other info
The victim families of the Air India 171 air crash of June 12, who have engaged US law firm Beasley Allen, will file applications under Right to Information (RTI) act seeking raw data on the crash, the firm's Principal Attorney Mike Andrews told The Indian Express on Wednesday. The RTI applications will be filed with the 'entities who have the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) data', Andrews, who is concluding his second visit to Gujarat on Wednesday, said. Andrews, whose law firm will make 'direct appeals' to Air India and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) for information sourced from the site of the crash that killed 241 of the 242 passengers and crew and 19 on the ground, said that over 80 victim families, including passengers and those who lost their lives on ground, had signed contracts with the firm so far. The firm is looking to do a 'reconstruction' of the crash and could proceed under the US product liability law once it gets the data. There were 53 British nationals, seven Portuguese, one Canadian and 169 Indian nationals on board the Gatwick (London)-bound Boeing 787 that went down soon after takeoff, crashing into the mess building of the BJ Medical College at Meghaninagar in Ahmedabad. 'We have some victims who were cooking food in the medical school, some who were out serving tea, and some who were on the scooters passing by. Those families highlight the fact that aviation safety affects everybody. They never bought plane tickets. They never expected it to be involved in an aviation crash,' said Andrews, with rakhis tied on his wrist by a Diu family which lost a daughter in the crash. Reiterating that his focus would be to 'find out what happened', Andrews said this is a first among the air crash cases he has handled in 30 years where there is a survivor and several ground casualties. He said he met the lone survivor, British national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh at his home in Diu 'briefly' — 'not as his attorney'. Vishwash lost his brother Ajay in the crash. His family is not among those who have signed up with Beasley Allen. 'The goal and the focus is to find out why and what happened. We do that after getting the data. First, we figure out what happened, and if it shows that Boeing is at fault or there's a manufacturing defect or a design defect, and those are different… we'll know if there's a claim for the product failure. That's my area of expertise. If that's the case, we would anticipate filing individual actions in the United States in federal court on behalf of each family,' the attorney said. According to Andrews, though the crash site is here, the company (Boeing) is American and thus the US product liability law would apply. 'If it is a defect, the company is in the US, the executives, engineers, decisions, the paperwork, the witnesses that matter to the engineering decisions, those are all in the United States. That is why it is so important to bring these cases there, because the goal of this is to fix accountability,' he told The Indian Express. Andrews said the findings of this investigation will decide what to fix. 'If it is a pilot issue, if it's a pilot error, if it's a maintenance problem, if it's something local to Air India, it should certainly bring about changes there. If it is a design problem or a maintenance problem with the design of the aircraft, and if this is a problem that's shown up in previous incidents, then something has to be done immediately to change that'. Andrews said he would not 'interfere' with the AAIB probe into the crash. 'We don't want to interfere with what they're doing. We'll file letters to them. The families or us on their behalf will seek information under the RTI Act. Beyond that, we know that there are potential petitions available to us through various courts. We would like to avoid that, if at all possible,' he said. He added that the firm was working with local counsel to 'determine the applicability of RTI to the various entities'. Visiting the site again On Tuesday evening, Andrews was part of a candlelight vigil held at the site of the air crash with some 25-30 victim families. Comparing it to his visit in July, Andrews recalled how the last time he was at the 'exact spot where the survivor walked out' and how it was cordoned off and 'really really quiet'. On the day marking two months of the crash, the cordon was lifted and the area had 'come back to life' with the traffic, he said. 'There were a lot of emotions in that group, you know, one of them was telling me: This is the first time I am seeing the place where my husband was killed. And I mean, that's powerful to hear somebody say that I don't think there's a thing like healing or closure, but a new normal that you're dealing with,' he said. Speaking about his role and interest in the case, Andrews said he would not approach anything with an agenda. 'I am curious. I want to know what happened. And after that, we'll know if somebody's accountable and who is responsible,' Andrews said. According to the Beasley Allen contract terms, there is no cost upfront but in the event there is a 'recovery', there is a 30% 'contingency fee in the end', says Andrews, who is headed to the UK to meet more victim families.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Fatehpur land dispute: Temple or tomb? An exclusive report based on official records
A ruckus broke out in Uttar Pradesh's Fatehpur after a group offered prayers at a tomb, considering it a temple. The Hindu side claims the land belongs to Hindus and houses a temple dedicated to Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva. The Muslim side, on the other hand, insists it is the tomb of Aurangzeb's Faujdar Abdul Samad and his son Abu what is this dispute really about? How was this tomb declared national property? This exclusive report is based on historical documents and official records related to the dispute traces back to the British era. In 1927–28, a case was filed for the division of 28 bighas of land in Fatehpur between two landlord families — Lal Girdhari Lal Rastogi and the Mansingh family. On 14 August 1928, the court under the then British government allotted Gata numbers 751, 752, and 754 to Lal Girdhari Lal Rastogi and Gata number 753 to the Mansingh family. Gata number 753 measured 1.7650 hectares (1,89,983 square feet). On 30 December 1970, Shakuntala Mansingh, wife of Nareshwar Mansingh — a descendant of the Mansingh family — sold this land to Ramnaresh Singh. Singh later divided the land into plots. According to an SDM Fatehpur investigation report dated 10 July 2014, Singh plotted 1.5890 hectares and sold it to various 2007, the Muslim side, claiming the site as the tomb of Aurangzeb's Faujdar Abdul Samad and his son Abu Bakar, filed a case before the SDM court (Case No. 26/2007). Mohammad Anees filed the case against Ramnaresh Singh. On 20 April 2012, the court ordered the removal of Singh's name from the records and registered the property under 'Mangi Maqbara (National Property), Mutawalli Mohammad Anees' of Abu Gata number 753 is recorded in Fatehpur's land revenue records as belonging to Mangi Maqbara (National Property), with Mutawalli Mohammad Anees as its 2019, the property was formally registered as Waqf land with the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board. It was listed as Waqf No 1635, Fatehpur district, in the names of Abdul Samad and Abu Mohammad. After Mohammad Anees, his son Abu Huraira became the turning point came in 2013, when Mohammad Anees petitioned the Allahabad High Court, claiming illegal encroachment on Gata number 753. The then Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud, directed the Fatehpur district administration to investigate and prevent illegal SDM's investigation revealed that before the legal dispute, Singh had already sold plots carved out of Gata number 753. The report detailed the current status of the land:advertisementTotal area: 1.7650 hectaresBuilt-up houses: 0.5890 hectaresFoundation dug: 1.000 hectaresMangi Maqbara structure: 0.0600 hectaresVacant land: 0.1160 hectares (approx. 12,486 sq ft), under the possession of Mutawalli Anees dispute remains unresolved, with both sides holding firm to their claimsa; one citing religious heritage, the other historical ownership backed by legal records.- EndsTune InMust Watch
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Rahul Gandhi's lawyer filed life threat plea without consent: Supriya Shrinate
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi will withdraw a written statement filed in a Pune court by his lawyer citing a threat to his life. Party leader Supriya Shrinate said in a post on X on Wednesday, 'Rahul Gandhi ji's lawyer had filed a written statement in court citing a threat to his life without consulting him or obtaining his consent. Rahul ji strongly disagrees with this. Therefore, tomorrow his lawyer will withdraw this written statement from the court.'advertisementEarlier in the day, Gandhi's lawyer, advocate Milind Pawar, had submitted an application in a defamation case linked to Gandhi's remarks on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The plea claimed that Gandhi faced 'grave apprehensions' about his safety due to 'recent political issues raked up' by him and his earlier comments on application alleged that the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, is a direct descendant of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, and that there is a 'documented history of violence and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage.' It further claimed that Savarkar may seek to 'derive undue advantage from the existing political circumstances, with an intent to exert influence upon, or bring extraneous pressure to bear on, this Court, particularly in light of the fact that the followers of the complainant's late so-called grandfather are presently in political power.'The plea said, 'Satyaki Savarkar has categorically admitted that he is a direct descendant through his maternal family lineage of Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse, the principal accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation. That assassination was not an act of impulse; it was the calculated outcome of a conspiracy, rooted in a specific ideology, culminating in deliberate violence against an unarmed person.'In the application, Gandhi also said, 'There exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting.' He added, 'There is a history of violence associated with the complainant's lineage. History should not be allowed to repeat itself,' referring to Mahatma Gandhi's claimed that his 'vote chori' allegations had provoked political opponents and cited 'two public threats' from BJP leaders—Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu, who called him the 'number one terrorist of the country,' and BJP leader Tarvinder Singh defamation case stems from Gandhi's November 17, 2022 speech during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in Akola, Maharashtra, where he allegedly called Savarkar a 'British servant' who received a pension from the colonial government. Satyaki Savarkar filed the criminal defamation case, submitting a CD and transcript of the speech as evidence.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Rahul Gandhi
