Latest news with #Orwellian
Malaysia Sun
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Malaysia Sun
State Department accuses EU of Orwellian censorship
The US government agency says the blocs online content-moderation policies violate free speech The EU's online content regulations are an affront to free speech, the US State Department has said in response to France's praise for the Digital Services Act (DSA). The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD). "In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom," the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. "All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people." Earlier this month, France's mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, "In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content." Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove "illegal and harmful" content and combat "the spread of disinformation," according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a bloc-wide "ministry of truth." Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk's platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as "politically motivated." In 2024, French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities. Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging "a crusade" against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania's 2024 presidential election. France's foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had "reminded" Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference. (
Powys County Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
Letter: Today's Britain is not what the country voted for
It's now a year since Sir Keir Starmer entered Downing Street with a landslide majority, promising stability and renewal. But what has followed has been one of the most shambolic and out-of-touch governments in living memory. Far from the 'grown-up government' we were promised, we've had a year of confusion, indecision, and economic damage. With the highest tax burden since the 1940s, rising energy bills, broken promises on National Insurance, and record levels of borrowing, this Labour government has left voters disillusioned and our economy stagnating. On immigration, Labour's record is even more alarming. Illegal Channel crossings are at record highs, up 50% on last year, despite empty pledges to 'smash the gangs.' We are now seeing illegal migrants placed in housing ahead of British families, and a refusal to declare a state of emergency despite warnings from security experts. Labour's fixation on mass immigration continues to stretch public services and housing, yet the government presses on, ignoring widespread public concern. At the same time, the Labour government has failed to protect free speech and the basic cultural principles this country was built on. From promoting Orwellian 'non-crime hate incidents' to casually dismissing public outrage as 'far right,' Starmer's Labour has shown itself more interested in appeasing elite institutions than listening to the working majority. Labour's approach to public debate has become increasingly censorious and intolerant, treating disagreement as a threat to be shut down rather than an opinion to be heard. This is not what the country voted for. Labour's first year has already seen its popularity collapse, with just 16% of people satisfied with the government's performance and Starmer now one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in modern history. After 12 months of economic decline, unchecked migration, and cultural censorship, the question must now be asked, can Britain really afford another four years of this? Roman Jones
Spectator
4 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff
Moscow's response to the latest ultimatum issued by Donald Trump last week has been to deploy that most Russian of diplomatic weapons: contemptuous laughter. The US president's threat to impose draconian sanctions unless Putin ends his invasion of Ukraine within fifty days has been met with the kind of theatrical disdain that would make Chekhov proud. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, never one to miss an opportunity for diplomatic sarcasm, openly sneered at Trump's intervention on Tuesday. 'We want to understand what exactly is behind this statement. Fifty days. It used to be 24 hours, and then it became 100 days. Russia has gone through all this and now wants to understand what the US president's motives are,' he said. Russian officials have pledged to continue 'achieving the aims of the special military operation – the Kremlin's Orwellian euphemism for what the rest of us call the invasion of Ukraine. Putin himself has yet to comment, but then again, he's never been one to appreciate being lectured by anyone, least of all an American president. 'If and when President Putin considers it necessary, he will certainly respond,' Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. This defiance might appear to be typical Russian bravado, but a closer examination suggests Moscow's confidence may be rather more calculated than theatrical. Trump's volte-face has been spectacular. After months of courting Putin and pressuring Ukraine to accept what amounted to capitulation, the President abruptly changed course on Monday. Fed up with Putin's intransigence, Trump promised to resume arms supplies to Ukraine and threatened to impose 100 per cent import tariffs on goods from any country trading with Russia. On paper, this threat is enormous. Russian oil exports, the lifeblood of Putin's war machine, would be in the crosshairs. Such sanctions could deprive Moscow's already strained budget of roughly a quarter of its revenues and remove five million barrels per day from global markets. Yet oil prices barely flinched. The markets, it seems, share Moscow's scepticism – and with good reason. The fundamental problem is that neither the Kremlin nor the stock market's trading desks appear to understand how these tariffs would actually work. This is hardly surprising, given that the idea seems to have been conceived more as a political gesture than a practical policy. Trump's track record with deadlines provides little comfort for those hoping he'll follow through. He has previously presented Putin with ultimatums that proved to be more bluster than bite, while simultaneously bombing Iran, but only after issuing warnings shortly beforehand. In March, he signed an executive order imposing 25 per cent tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil – tariffs that have yet to materialise. The fifty-day deadline itself presents Putin with both opportunity and incentive. It's sufficient time to pursue his summer offensive – the most successful, if costliest, since 2023. Rather than seeking immediate peace, Putin might well decide to go all in, intensifying his bombardment of Ukrainian cities while gnawing at Ukrainian defences. By September, he could be better positioned to offer a ceasefire from a position of strength, or perhaps to persuade his American counterpart that he needs just a little more time to complete his objectives. Should Trump's tariffs actually materialise, they would devastate America's relationships with some rather important countries. China, India, and Turkey – Russia's primary oil customers – would face prohibitive trade barriers. The notion that America could simply cease trading with China, which is what the 100 per cent tariffs would result in, defies economic reality, as it became clear in the wake of Trump's trade war earlier this year. Similarly, alienating India at a time when Washington needs Delhi's support against Beijing seems strategically myopic. The issue of Turkey would also present an absurd scenario: sanctioning a Nato ally whose cooperation is essential for American interests in Syria and the Caucasus. Perhaps most tellingly, removing five million barrels of Russian oil from global markets would trigger precisely the kind of price surge that Trump has spent years promising to avoid. With no spare production capacity to replace Russian crude in the short to medium term, American motorists would face soaring fuel costs just as inflation begins to bite harder. For a president who campaigned on economic competence, this would look like a self-damaging strategy. Ironically, Trump's threat has already delivered Putin an unexpected gift: it has effectively neutered congressional efforts to impose more serious sanctions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced on Monday that he would postpone advancing a bipartisan sanctions package that boasted 85 Senate co-sponsors. The senators' bill would have imposed even more severe, but equally prohibitive, tariffs – 500 per cent rather than 100 per cent. More importantly, though, it would have codified existing sanctions within a congressional framework, preventing future presidents from simply lifting them by declining to extend emergency powers. The bill also included provisions to exclude countries supporting Ukraine from the sanctions, potentially redirecting Russian oil flows and forcing Moscow to sell below the agreed price cap. Instead, the Senate has put the legislation on ice and seems unlikely to revisit it soon. Putin could hardly have asked for a better outcome. As theatre director Konstantin Stanislavsky once famously told his unconvincing actors, 'I don't believe you.' The markets appear to share this assessment. Trump's tariffs threat represents a change in rhetoric rather than substance. Moscow's mockery, therefore, may be justified. Putin has called Trump's bluff before and emerged victorious. With economic reality, political constraints, and America's own strategic interests all working in his favour, the Russian president may well have calculated that he can afford to laugh at yet another American ultimatum. The question isn't whether Putin will blink – it's whether Trump's threats will prove any more substantial than his previous deadlines. Moscow's confidence suggests they know the answer.
The Sun
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Sun
How Britain went Big Brother bonkers 25 years ago as ten ordinary people changed face of TV – so what happened to them?
A SKATEBOARDING nun, a pantomime villain who became Britain's most hated man and a cheeky, muscleman builder. All thrown into a dystopian world of surveillance, with the most instantly recognisable theme tune of modern times. 13 13 13 Exactly 25 years ago (yes, really) Big Brother, a televisual experiment that would transform broadcasting for ever, was launched on a once-bold Channel 4. Imported from Holland, this novel formula would pit an initial ten housemates against one another in a constantly monitored compound. And, within days, our nation and many parts of its media were hooked on this fresh Orwellian TV triumph. The internet had started to take a chokehold on our lives, Princess Diana was dead and the Nineties hangover kicked in, with newspapers and the public searching for something new to fill our lives. This never-before-seen social experiment would play a starring role in killing off the Cool Britannia movement that had swept through the nation and its media during the previous decade. And on the evening of July 18, 2000, this group of strangers — chosen from 40,000 applicants — exploded on to our plasma screens from a heavily fortified East London house. As they lived alongside cameras scrutinising their every move, the country, in increasing numbers, could not resist a nose and a poke at these everymen and women competing for the £70,000 prize money. Big Brother certainly dominated my life as the Millennium Bug failed to materialise and the 21st century's first summer dawned. Hi-tech awakening As the then Showbiz Editor of The Sun, I was immediately drawn to this addictive, creative innovation and spotted its potential to spark media debate. And I felt we should try to take ownership of this visual phenomenon and give it unrivalled coverage. Celebrity Big Brother's Sexiest Moments! When we called ourselves ' The official paper of Big Brother ', it prompted a series of irate calls from Channel 4 HQ. As coverage ballooned, so did the newspaper's sales and website traffic, with the average TV audience rating also rising to 4.5million. Britain was growing obsessed with a buff Scouse builder called Craig, a posh bloke called Nick, later Nasty Nick (Copyright: The Sun), Anna the nun and lentil-munching, yogic hippie Sada, among others. All packaged together with the soothing Geordie lilt of narrator Marcus Bentley, histrionic host Davina McCall and a banging theme tune conjured up by the wizard fingers of superstar DJ Paul Oakenfold. Online forums were ignited by forensic analysis of the show, while this paper splashed with the disparate household's twists and turns, relegating coverage of the stuttering Britpop bands and pushing them down the news agenda. The era-defining Big Brother inmates may not have possessed the creative talents of our celebrated, most recent working-class artistic wave. But they came from the same towns and cities, and in their own way, certainly in the first series, embodied a generation of normal people with a curiosity and drive for success and fortune. Big Brother is such a well-trodden formula now but we must remind ourselves of its originality, its technological innovation and deviousness, aped by Love Island and triggering a celebrity spin-off which never measured up to the OG. 13 13 To be able to interact and determine outcomes of a show online and through voting gave the public a feeling of power and control at their fingertips, as if millions of us were collectively directing a show. That hadn't happened before. It was a visual and hi-tech awakening and we felt like we were glimpsing a dystopian future. It was perhaps an uncanny insight into the modern world which we inhabit today, where we ourselves are continually monitored and scrutinised by CCTV and tracked online. In later series, contestants knew the drill and came in as rehearsed and unlikeable wannabes with agendas and agents, focused on carving out media careers and boosting numbers on their social platforms. But in series one, there was a boundless innocence and unknown; a ragtag bunch of unsuspecting people thrown together randomly. That's what made it electric. The first-wave Big Brother collective was a diverse celebration of all that was great about modern Britain, despite sneering cynics claiming the opposite. And Britons have always loved twitching their net curtains, peering over fences and gossiping. Big Brother gave us the ability to do that 24/7 via a revolutionary live feed, forums and episodes which were edited and screened within 24 hours. It felt so live, in and of the moment. And the drama of witnessing unscripted manipulation and argument was breathtaking and unprecedented. Edges of the seat were fully occupied. We all assumed that the box office moment would be if some of the contestants had live sex on television. The original Dutch show had sparked national debate and spiked media scrutiny when a couple slipped under the covers. There was one moment when grainy monochrome images of ultimate victor Craig Phillips and Claire Strutton in bed together emerged, but it wasn't definitive, although it did prompt the memorable headline 'Duvet do it or not?'. However, in the build-up to the show's premiere, there had been a key event — when its producer Ruth Wrigley noticed that, despite the diversity of the selected contestants, something was amiss. She recalled: 'As we got close to signing off on the cast, we realised that the one thing we were missing was a white, heterosexual, posh male. 'Nick was our last choice and we weren't really that sure. He ticked a box. Which goes to show how little control you really have!' Hysterical frenzy Enter former City broker Nick Bateman, who was televisual TNT and whose presence transformed the programme. As his scheming, Machiavellian strategy was revealed — attempting to influence housemates' votes by showing them names on pieces of paper — he became the most hated man in Britain, for a sunny week or two, at least. In a hysterical frenzy of speculation, there were also unsubstantiated claims that Nick had smuggled a Motorola flip-phone into the house in his undercrackers and was receiving outside intelligence. Myself and colleague Derek Brown suffered logistical headaches and high expense while masterminding the hiring of a miniature helicopter to drop leaflets into the compound, encouraging housemates to evict Nick. It was all rather silly and, these days, would be so much cheaper and simpler with a drone. Nick was challenged by his fellow housemates about cheating and he was removed from the house by producers after 34 days, with Craig dubbing his strategy 'a very dirty plot'. In retrospect, it wasn't exactly the crime of the century but that moment of confrontation was the most intoxicating TV of our lives. Alas, the show was never quite as captivating after the pantomime villain's exit. Nick's soundbite utterances of 'I made a mistake' and 'If you live by the sword, you die by the sword' became engrained in popular culture and mimicked in pubs and offices across the land. Scouse builder Craig, then 28, gave away his prize money to his friend with Down's syndrome who needed a heart and lung transplant. But he would not take part again, admitting in a recent interview: 'Over the years, people would stop me in the street and say, 'I've applied for Big Brother, what advice would you give me?'. "And I would look at them and go, 'Don't do it!'. 'We'd gone in not really expecting much, but we all got a lot from it. There was no social media then. 'But today, you need to be strong enough to accept you could come out very badly from it. It's a dangerous position to be in. Fame and fortune do not go hand in hand.' Not long ago, I interviewed Nick from his new home in Australia, and he reflected: 'Late-night Channel 4 was kind of what you watched when you got back from the pub, drunk. 'It was an experiment and I didn't think anything would come of it because I didn't think anyone would find it interesting watching ten ordinary British people, who didn't know each other, sitting around in a house. 'There was never an urge to be famous. No one had any idea and that was what made the first series unique. 'Nobody had aspirations to be a magazine writer or an Instagram model. That's where our show had that sweet puerility. 'Emotional terrorism' 'I'd realised this was a gameshow with prize money. How I played the game, in retrospect, was very innocent but caused a furore. 'I was just using emotional terrorism to further my stay in the house and to win the money.' Following his eviction, there was a media feeding frenzy for the now infamous Nick's exclusive story. 13 I secured an exorbitant deal after fierce negotiations with his new-found agent and we were soon holed up together in a hotel in Bagshot, Surrey. In a haze of late-night cigarettes and alcohol, we talked about Nick's boarding school education, his family and his new status as Britain's Mr Nasty. His revelations were splashed across the front pages over the following days and sales went up by north of 100,000 a day as Britons devoured the words of the nation's most detested - and most famous — man at that moment. It's neither hyperbole nor exaggeration to suggest the country had gone Big Brother bonkers. The media circus was absolutely unprecedented and would have made George Orwell lunge for the gin. But it showed the powerful impact of the format. Coincidentally, around that time, I had been invited to the glittering Leicester Square premiere of Guy Ritchie's riotous gangster film Snatch and reckoned it might be a wheeze to bring Nick out of hiding to accompany me. We arrived in style in a chauffeur-driven SUV, he clad in a Sun baseball cap, which was the least he could do after the money we had made him. As we lingered in the foyer, Brad Pitt, Guy — about to marry Madonna at the time — and footballer-turned-actor Vinnie Jones came over to meet Nick. And The Sun's expert photographer Dave Hogan captured a moment in time, when A-list celebrity collided with reality TV's new-found superstar. This was a symbolic image, encapsulating a snatched, fleeting clash of popular culture. Hollywood's elite knew the identity of a dazed former City boy, who had been unknown and jettisoned into a televisual laboratory only weeks before. The image graced Page One the following day under the headline: ' Who's With Nasty Nick? ' It cemented Big Brother's status as the pre-eminent, cutting-edge entertainment innovation of the age, which thrust reality television on to the front pages of Britain's media alongside Hollywood royalty. 13
Irish Independent
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Letters: It looks like we're going backwards on housing, with tenements by a new name
How do you live in an apartment this size? How can a couple work from home – how can even one person work from home? Despite the tiny size, the cost is still a big mortgage, but how can anyone expect people to live and enjoy their company when so close to one another? Home may have been where the heart was, but I think that is no more. Colette Collins, Co Wicklow Israel has truly mastered Orwell's concepts when it comes to linguistic abuse George Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four that 'war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength'. The term 'Orwellian' has become synonymous with the corruption of language to mean its opposite. An organisation called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation lures starving Palestinians into aid distribution centres where they are massacred by Israeli soldiers. Israel's 'defence' (another Orwellian word) minister Israel Katz calls for a 'humanitarian city' to be built on the ruins of the city of Rafah, where the entire population of Gaza will be imprisoned. Clearly, the word 'humanitarian' should be added to Orwell's list. Raymond Deane, Broadstone, Dublin Concentration camps are next for Gazans – how is this allowed to happen? Israel is now mooting the building of concentration camps, which I cannot get my head around. Two hundred years ago, we had similar camps in the United States in their treatment of the native Americans. ADVERTISEMENT Learn more Eighty years ago, we had the Nazi concentration camps. Only a few years ago, we had the camps in Srebrenica. Can the world permit Israel to do the same? Our silence is a mark of our guilt. Paul Doran, Clondalkin, Dublin 22 If we tighten our belts in Budget 2026, expect rail network plans to take a hit The doom and gloom regarding Budget 2026 has begun in earnest, and no wonder, given the state of the world. Long-term, I wonder if it will have an adverse effect on the proposed rail network plans to reinstate a train service from Dublin to Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, scheduled to take 30 years? Or will the M3 motorway, with the most expensive tolls in the country, continue to shoot fish in the Cavan barrel? Peter Declan O'Halloran, Belturbet, Co Cavan Housing children stuck in B&Bs for two years must be priority for politicians It is reported that 14 children have been in emergency accommodation for over two years. This is unacceptable, in particular for the health and well-being of the children. I believe this matter should be addressed as a matter of urgency by our elected representatives. Michael Moriarty, Rochestown, Co Cork Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the summer omens don't look good Yesterday was St Swithin's Day and, true to reputation, it poured in Armagh. Some might still hold to the superstition that 40 days of rain will follow. Frankly, in Armagh, that's not a prophecy, it's the pattern. I was reminded of a summer long ago when I was a J1 student in California. I cycled daily along on El Camino in blazing heat. Nearing Colma, a place known less for its nightlife and more for its abundance of cemeteries, I'd pass a roofer's yard. Painted on the side of the building, in bold, sun-bleached lettering, were the wise words: 'It Will Rain Again.' They should carve that into the Armagh City crest. It would be more honest than any Latin motto. Enda Cullen, Tullysaran Road, Co Armagh Pub closures signal that the fabric of rural Ireland is beginning to fall apart According to a new report commissioned by the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland, about 2,000 pubs have closed in Ireland since 2005. It says more than 100 are closing every year. It could be argued that there is a changing way of life. Covid-19 may also have contributed. The bottom line in any enterprise is that it needs to turn a profit to sustain itself. Clearly, pubs are struggling, and the present taxation regime and regulatory regime militate against them being viable. I feel pubs are vital to the social and economic fabric of rural Ireland. They act as community hubs and are often the only social gathering place. They play a part in fostering community cohesion and even economic activity. The late Austrian-American actor and activist Theodore Bikel once uttered the following words, which I find apposite to the above: 'You don't really need modernity in order to exist totally and fully. You need a mixture of modernity and tradition.' John O'Brien, Clonmel, Co Tipperary Has the EU now crept so close to Nato that the two cannot be told apart? On the RTÉ One O'Clock News we were informed that Donald Trump had decided to supply Patriot missiles to Ukraine for its defence. He was quoted as saying the EU was paying for them. By the time the Six One News came on, we were informed it was Nato that was paying the US for the missiles. So who actually is paying? If it is the EU, how are we in Ireland not to be involved? Is it Nato, or has EU moved so close to Nato that they are considered indistinguishable by the US? Is this another step for our Government as it seeks to creep away from our cherished position of neutrality? Paddy Murray, Castlepollard, Co Westmeath Donegal boys look to be unstoppable and brought tears to my eyes on Sunday I watched last Sunday's semi-final between Donegal and Meath in awe. Our wonderful Donegal boys played with such brilliance and passion that my heart nearly stopped and tears appeared. With the greatest of respect to Kerry, I'm going to put my head on the block and predict Donegal won't be stopped. Brian McDevitt, Glenties, Co Donegal
