Latest news with #InnovationandTechnology
India Today
01-08-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Kerala Governor reappoints temporary Vice Chancellors after Supreme Court approval
In yet another flashpoint between the Kerala Governor and the state government, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar has appointed two temporary Vice Chancellors (VCs) while the state's recommendations for permanent VCs remain pending before Ciza Thomas has been appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, and Dr K Shivaprasad will serve as the VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological to the Raj Bhavan, the appointments were made in compliance with a recent Supreme Court directive. The top court had permitted the appointment of temporary VCs following an appeal by the Chancellor against the Kerala High Court verdict, which had previously quashed such appointments in the two universities. The Supreme Court clarified that temporary appointments can continue until permanent VCs are in place, but their tenure must not exceed six months. The court also urged the state of Kerala to formulate a mechanism for appointing permanent VCs and called for full cooperation from the Chancellor in the court further acknowledged that appointing permanent VCs would take time. During the interim period, it stated that the Chancellor could either appoint someone new or permit the existing temporary VCs to continue, in line with the respective Acts governing the two universities.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Kerala
Roya News
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Roya News
UK woman arrested in 4 AM raid for emailing MP to 'stop Gaza genocide'
A 54-year-old woman in Brighton, UK, identified as Kerry (pseudonym), was subjected to a 4 am police raid on her home, arrested, and had her electronic devices seized, following a complaint reportedly made by the office of Labour MP and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle. The incident, which occurred on June 17, stems from Kerry's emails to various Labour politicians, including Kyle, expressing strong views on 'Israel's' war on the Gaza Strip, according to an investigation conducted by a Brighton-based writer 'Greg Hadfield'. Kerry recounted being woken by her dogs around 4 am to find four uniformed Sussex Police officers at her door. She was immediately arrested, her mobile phone and Chromebook confiscated, and then transported to Hollingbury Custody Centre, where she was held for over eight hours. She was questioned about "malicious communication" and later released on strict bail conditions, which prohibit her from contacting Peter Kyle, his Director of Operations Chris Henry, Sir Keir Starmer, David Lammy, Angela Rayner, or visiting Kyle's constituency office. The emails in question, sent by Kerry, a former broadcaster who avoids social media, conveyed "anger and concern about Israel's actions in Gaza, which she described as 'genocide.'" While her messages included strong statements, such as politicians potentially being tried in The Hague, the author of the original report, who reviewed the emails, said they were "polite, articulate, and impassioned," containing no "abusive, threatening, or unlawful content, nor anything antisemitic". The complaint to Sussex Police was reportedly lodged by Chris Henry, Peter Kyle's "Director of Operations," on June 16. Kyle, who became Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology after Labour's 2024 election victory, is also a vice-president of Labour Friends of 'Israel'. He has previously spoken about receiving serious threats and abuse, emphasizing the need to protect his staff. However, critics argue the 4 am raid for email communication appears disproportionate, especially given the nature of the alleged offense. This incident has ignited concerns about the balance between constituent free speech and the application of laws like the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, which criminalize "grossly offensive" messages. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance emphasizes that merely "rude or offensive" communication is not unlawful unless it is "grossly offensive," and that interference with freedom of expression must be "necessary and proportionate". Cases involving communications offenses directed towards MPs require special approval from a Chief Crown Prosecutor. The timing of the police intervention, a 4 am raid, also raises questions, as search warrants are generally executed between 6 am and 10 pm, with exceptions requiring "reasonable cause". No specific UK guidelines for police raids under communications acts specify the time of day. Neither Peter Kyle nor the Labour Party has issued a public statement regarding this specific incident.
Spectator
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
The Online Safety Act is plumbing new depths of stupidity
As anyone who has endured a pointless argument on the internet probably knows, there's a decidedly useful rule for such situations. It's called Godwin's Law. Coined in 1990 by American lawyer Mike Godwin, in its most well-known version it states that in any sufficiently lengthy online row, the first person to invoke the Nazis – whether as comparison, example, or evidence – instantly loses by virtue of their luridly stupid exaggeration. Now it seems we have a shiny new British equivalent. Let's call it Jimmy's Law. The principle is similar: anyone who drags infamous paedophile Jimmy Savile into a political argument has already lost. Why? Because they've reached up for the most grotesque, emotive analogy in the rhetorical pantry: an act of political flailing that signals not moral clarity, but a lack of real argument. Put it another way: if you're mentioning Savile, you sound daft, you sound objectionable, and, above all, you sound desperate. Plenty have broken Jimmy's Law before – not least Boris Johnson, who, as Prime Minister, pitiably tried to smear then–opposition leader Keir Starmer by invoking Savile. But this week saw a new and even more egregious case. Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, claimed that Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was – brace yourself – on Team Jimmy Savile in opposing the contentious Online Safety Act. Kyle's exact words, on Sky News, were: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he would be perpetrating his crimes online – and Nigel Farage is saying that he is on their side.' Yes, it's cringeworthy. Yes, it's hyperbolic and foolish. And yes, it's a naked attempt to distract from the fact that Peter Kyle – a man so well suited to his role as Technology Minister that he appears to have no background in technology, no experience in the technology sector, no career with technology companies, no obvious technological training, and a degree in 'International Development' – has no argument. Because the Online Safety Act, birthed by Conservative MPs supposedly worried about hurty words on social media, is a total disaster: for online discourse, for the UK tech sector, and possibly for the future of free speech itself. Why? Let us count the ways. The OSA, already pejoratively rebranded by its millions of worldwide critics as the Online Surveillance Act, has begun to smother the internet under a morass of bureaucratic fear and ill-defined obligations, far beyond its limited and worthy aim of 'protecting kids from porn by asking them to prove their age.' Since the Act came into force (originally in 2023, but with greater effect in recent days), the absurdities have piled up fast. Entire Reddit communities – from harmless subreddits about cider to basic vape advice chatrooms – have gone half-dark, unable to easily implement the age verification systems. Niche forums for LGBT teens, survivors of abuse, and mental health support groups have shrunk away rather than risk falling foul of vague 'harmful content' clauses. A forum about 'fixed gear cycling in London' (yes, really) shut down because it feared it couldn't afford the compliance overhead. Bloggers now face the threat of the newly empowered Ofcom commissars jackbooting into their homes simply because they allow unmoderated comments. Indie developers are meanwhile withdrawing apps rather than navigate opaque new obligations. Tiny academic discussion boards are self-censoring, worried that robust historical debate might be misread as hate speech, or something 'harmful' – a truly terrifying concept, if you think about it for more than ten seconds (a cognitive task apparently beyond the average MP). Even porn filters, supposedly the law's core goal, have ensnared art, education, and health sites in overzealous net sweeps. All the while, actual abusers and scammers, who rarely host content on UK servers, will likely carry on largely undisturbed. The result? Not a safer internet, but a smaller, duller, more paranoid one. A place where freedom shrinks, innovation flees, and everything begins to sound eerily and deadeningly pre-approved, like Russian poetry under Stalin. It is already noticeable that the OSA is not being used to shut down Pornhub or xHamster for adolescents, but to silence discussion – or even basic news – about those topics most awkward for the world's worst government: Pakistani rape gangs, illegal immigration, protests about asylum hotels, and all that dreadful jazz that soundtracks Britain's decline. What's more, the OSA threatens to destroy Britain's AI industry – one of the few areas where we might actually be exploiting our post-Brexit freedoms. Just as the EU ties itself in knots with dim, restrictive AI regulations, we are busily ushering in something arguably worse. Looking through the Act's 200 densely bureaucratic pages for anti-tech landmines is like looking through Proust for long sentences. But already tech insiders have expressed alarm at particular gems. For example, next year the OSA will allow Ofcom to require companies to hand over any information about their algorithms as well as internal documents, data and software source code as part of its 'regulatory functions'. The result is a legal ambiguity so vast it could engulf an entire industry. Startups will die under the compliance burden. Larger tech and AI firms will shift labs and headquarters abroad. And Britain's AI industry, briefly a potential world leader, will find itself reduced to the digital equivalent of a wine bar shut down for not having a government-approved corkscrew made of chocolate. How has it come to this? How has Britain ended up with perhaps the worst piece of legislation since King Cnut brought in his Stop the Tides Act of 1023? I can hazard a guess, and it is evidenced by one of the progenitors of the Act: Nadine Dorries. Apparently, when she was Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Dorries once walked into a meeting with Microsoft and bluntly asked when they were 'going to get rid of algorithms'. This is an Act devised by silly people, passed by silly people, enforced by silly people. And now it is being sold to us by silly and desperate people who know they've screwed up, but nonetheless think they can win a crucial argument about technology by invoking dead, disgraced disc jockeys. Britain, we are ill-served.
Western Telegraph
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Western Telegraph
Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology
A row broke out on Tuesday morning after Peter Kyle said the Reform UK leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile' over the party's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act. Mr Farage labelled Technology Secretary Mr Kyle's remarks as 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief', and urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed. We talked to mums about the Online Safety Act 👇 — Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) July 25, 2025 Former Reform chair Zia Yusuf said on Monday that the party would repeal the legislation if they got into Government. 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws,' Mr Kyle told Sky News. 'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Peter Kyle's comments on @SkyNews are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 29, 2025 Responding to Mr Kyle on a live stream on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation? 'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.' He also reiterated his demand for an apology and added: 'We're not going to get one. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is to sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. That's what I'm going to do today. I think it makes sense. I'm deeply worried about the implications for free speech.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Mr Yusuf has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-Government speech'. After being asked by Mr Farage to apologise on social media, Mr Kyle doubled down on his comments, claiming that wanting to 'overturn' the Act puts somebody 'on the side of predators'. If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. — Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025 Mr Yusuf has claimed that Mr Kyle's remarks showed 'how deeply unserious' the Government was about child safety, adding: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.' He told Sky News that the comments are 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena that I can remember. And that's quite a high bar, frankly.' Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'
North Wales Chronicle
29-07-2025
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology
A row broke out on Tuesday morning after Peter Kyle said the Reform UK leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile' over the party's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act. Mr Farage labelled Technology Secretary Mr Kyle's remarks as 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief', and urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed. We talked to mums about the Online Safety Act 👇 — Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) July 25, 2025 Former Reform chair Zia Yusuf said on Monday that the party would repeal the legislation if they got into Government. 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws,' Mr Kyle told Sky News. 'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Peter Kyle's comments on @SkyNews are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 29, 2025 Responding to Mr Kyle on a live stream on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation? 'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.' He also reiterated his demand for an apology and added: 'We're not going to get one. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is to sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. That's what I'm going to do today. I think it makes sense. I'm deeply worried about the implications for free speech.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Mr Yusuf has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-Government speech'. After being asked by Mr Farage to apologise on social media, Mr Kyle doubled down on his comments, claiming that wanting to 'overturn' the Act puts somebody 'on the side of predators'. If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. — Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025 Mr Yusuf has claimed that Mr Kyle's remarks showed 'how deeply unserious' the Government was about child safety, adding: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.' He told Sky News that the comments are 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena that I can remember. And that's quite a high bar, frankly.' Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'
