Latest news with #Prevent
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations
President Donald Trump pledged to remove barriers to American leadership in AI in January. The president recently made good on this promise by directing the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to scrap President Joe Biden's Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion on May 13, two days before it was set to go into effect. Although it is unclear what the Trump administration will replace it with, the rescission of the Biden-era framework recognizes the necessity of exporting American chips and AI to maintain America's technological, economic, and strategic dominance. The Biden framework would have amended export regulations to impose a worldwide license regime on all advanced semiconductors designed for data center use. This would have also hit graphics processing units (GPUs) used for AI acceleration, including foreign product chips that are "direct products" of American technology. This would have not only subjected geopolitical rivals such as China to strict controls but also restricted the number of GPUs sold to 150 other countries, many of which are close trading partners and allies, such as Israel, and some which are NATO members (Greece, Portugal, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania), per the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, tells Reason that the diffusion framework "established a world-wide regime that would have restricted American companies from trading with friends and allies overseas." Chilson says the rule's rescission helps American companies keep the global lead in AI technology. Keegan McBride, a senior policy adviser in emerging technology and geopolitics at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, agrees. McBride tells Reason that rescinding the Biden rule "opens up new opportunities for innovation, economic growth, and global engagement." With the Biden-era framework dead, the Trump administration has announced its "Industry Guidance to Prevent Diversion of Advanced Computing Integrated Circuits." Instead of imposing a complex regulatory scheme, the new guidance informs semiconductor manufacturers how to remain in compliance with existing export restrictions that have been in place since October 2022. The guidance still recognizes the danger of China acquiring advanced chips through transshipment or diversion and by accessing data centers. The guidance also provides "common sense recommendations about how companies can help [prevent] such chips from ending up in Chinese hands," explains Chilson. Chilson anticipates the guidance to be followed by "a new rule that attempts to address some of the divergence scenarios highlighted in the guidance" and expects a more tailored solution that reflects awareness of the negative effects of the Biden approach. Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology policy research fellow at the Cato Institute, is less optimistic. "At this juncture, the administration has signaled a desire to negotiate controls bilaterally, country by country," which Mittelsteadt warns may lead to "195 country-specific flavors of AI export controls" that would hamper American companies' competitiveness and overburden the license processors at the Commerce Department. Overinclusive regulations like Biden's Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion would have hampered economic growth and national security; capping demand for American-made advanced GPUs reduces revenue to domestic semiconductor and AI firms that require capital to invest in research and development, innovate, and maintain industry dominance. McBride is confident that the Trump administration understands that the "active promotion of American AI to the global community" is a crucial component of winning the AI race against China. Hopefully, he's right. The post What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations appeared first on
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Neurodivergent people overreported to UK anti-extremism programmes, charity says
The treatment of people with autism who are referred to the government's Prevent scheme is to be challenged. A human rights charity has written to Yvette Cooper claiming that Prevent, as well as Channel, the multi-agency follow-on programme, which both seek to identify people at risk of extremism, are overreporting neurodivergent people in breach of equality laws. There are concerns that autistic people are being referred to the authorities due to a lack of healthcare provision. In a pre-action letter to the Home Office, Rights & Security International (RSI) has warned that it remains 'deeply concerned about a potential ongoing failure to collect and analyse data on the protected characteristics of those referred to Prevent and that this constitutes an ongoing failure to comply with their public sector equality duty'. The letter states that a 2021 internal Home Office analysis obtained under the Freedom of Information Act found that more than a quarter of those receiving deradicalisation support from the Channel programme had either been diagnosed or had a suspected diagnosis of autism. The Channel programme is for the most serious cases where there is a 'genuine risk' of radicalisation. Having obtained previously undisclosed Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) carried out in 2023, RSI is concerned that the government is not adequately addressing the risk of 'overreporting' autistic people. Sarah St Vincent, executive director of RSI, said the documents suggest the government is taking a 'casual and even careless approach' to understanding the impact of Prevent on autistic people. 'The government needs to seriously rethink its approach to the Prevent programme, and in the meantime, authorities need to properly monitor the programme's equality impact,' she said. RSI argues that the 2021 report, entitled Autism Spectrum Condition: Support within the Channel Process, raises concerns about the potential discriminatory impact of the programme on autistic people. The report said: 'Survey findings indicate that an estimated 14% of Channel cases had diagnosed Autism Spectrum Condition. In 12% of cases Channel practitioners considered that someone might be autistic although they lacked the clinic diagnosis.' In legal correspondence with RSI, the Home Office has indicated that data about the protected characteristics of referred persons is often not available. It said existing Prevent and Channel data does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of all protected characteristics of individuals referred. RSI has argued that the failure to collect adequate data to support equality monitoring constitutes a breach of the home secretary and police's Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). PSED is the requirement to have 'due regard' to the equality objectives in section 149 of the Equality Act, which include the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion As part of its letter, the human rights organisation has asked for a formal Alternative Dispute Resolution meeting to try to resolve its concerns. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has voiced his concerns that a 'staggeringly high' number of autistic people are referred to Prevent. He has cited terrorism cases in which the defendants were autistic, including 17-year-old Lloyd Gunton, who declared himself an Islamic State soldier and was sentenced to life in prison for preparing a vehicle and knife attack in Cardiff in 2018. Carolin Ott, a senior associate solicitor in Leigh Day's human rights department, which represents RSI, said: 'There is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of the Prevent programme and its potentially disproportionate impact on minority groups. Our client believes that the data it has obtained bolsters its argument that the government needs to change its approach.' The Home Office has been approached for comment.
Wales Online
25-05-2025
- Wales Online
'I warned authorities about him but nothing happened. Then he went on a rampage'
'I warned authorities about him but nothing happened. Then he went on a rampage' Exclusive: A family member of Alexander Dighton believes his near-fatal attack on Talbot Green police was not prevented because of a 'systematic failure' Alexander Dighton during a social gathering with neighbours Authorities were repeatedly warned about the views and behaviour of a man who later tried to murder a police officer, WalesOnline can reveal. On the evening of January 31, while clad in body armour, Alexander Dighton approached Talbot Green police station in Rhondda Cynon Taf with a knife, hatchet, and wooden pole. The 28-year-old threw a Molotov cocktail at a police van, which did not ignite, but he then managed to set another police van alight using petrol. He smashed the van's windows with the pole before attacking a group of officers who had arrived on the scene. He swung the pole — which was adapted with metal on the end — at one officer, punched another to the head, and stabbed a third to the leg before finally being restrained. Two of the officers needed hospital treatment. Dighton later pleaded guilty to 10 charges — among them the attempted murder of DC Jack Cotton — and is due to be sentenced next month. A family member of Dighton has now told us they referred him to the Prevent counter-terrorism scheme more than a year before the attack — but Counter Terrorism Policing Wales found he did not meet the criteria to be included in the programme. The same relative contacted South Wales Police on January 14 this year with concerns about his behaviour. We understand they also tried to get him support from Rhondda Cynon Taf council's social services around two and a half years ago, and a neighbour of Dighton reportedly made similar unsuccessful efforts with the council in the weeks before the attack. Article continues below The family member drew comparisons to the cases of Jake Davison, who shot five people dead in Plymouth, and Axel Rudakubana, who stabbed three children to death in Southport. "If all these individuals had Prevent referrals in place, why are the police not intervening, when it's the people closest to them making these referrals?" they said. "This isn't to say police didn't do their job, but it's a systematic failure. It was highlighted to all the right people and it wasn't prevented. It raises the question: are police well-staffed enough? And mental health services that could have helped Alex have been cut. "This was preventable. There has to be a policy change somewhere with regards to these radicalised individuals. The Prevent referrals are not preventing attacks." Alexander Dighton, left, as a prize-winning student and, right, in his mugshot after attempting to murder a police officer Dighton, originally from Aberdare, studied engineering at Neath Port Talbot College and parametric modelling at Coleg y Cymoedd. At the age of 18 he won a Wales-wide competition in advanced mechanical engineering for his computer-aided design of a wobbler engine. At the time, we ran a short piece on Dighton's achievement and he told us he had aspirations to become an engineer in the Royal Air Force. Around two and a half years ago he was among the first residents to move into Beacon housing association's Cwrt Tafarn estate, a new-build of 26 homes in Llantrisant, where he forged close bonds with a few of his neighbours, who were worried by his consumption of online conspiracy theories. He engaged little with his family in recent years, and on the occasions they did speak he alarmed them with increasingly anti-authority views. One family member said Dighton always struggled to understand social interaction. They believe he is autistic, although he did not seek support and did not have a formal diagnosis. The relative said they warned in the Prevent referral that Dighton had been making Islamophobic comments about the Rotherham child abuse scandal and about "Muslims raping women". They voiced concern that he was identifying as an 'incel' (a movement of 'involuntarily celibate' men, some of whom have been linked to extreme misogyny and mass killings) and that he felt he would have been "respected as a man and would have had a family" if he lived in the medieval era. The relative said they told counter-terrorism police that Dighton was severely unwell and on the road to either hurting himself or becoming a mass shooter. We understand police carried out an assessment, including going through Dighton's laptop, but that there was no follow-up action. Dighton did not speak to his family member about an explicit plan for terrorism but they felt his feelings of frustration towards society had gone through a "clear escalation". In the months before the attack he became more erratic, suddenly quitting his job — which involved making inflatable evacuation slides for Cardiff Airport — despite a recent promotion. Dighton also received a conditional discharge for verbally abusing a local resident who he claimed had been smoking drugs. He complained to neighbours that he had reported the alleged drug use but that police "only see the things they want to see". Just over a fortnight before the attack, the family member alerted South Wales Police to concerns about Dighton's behaviour. When officers carried out a welfare check at his flat, he reportedly made racist comments about Muslims and police "protecting the wrong people". The family member believes this should have been escalated in light of the earlier Prevent referral. A few days later, a neighbour reportedly called social services "begging for help" for Dighton, who had been walking in circles and chanting outside the flats. The council reportedly responded that they "couldn't do anything" unless Dighton asked for help himself. But the family member said Dighton would never have done so given he "was severely mentally ill and had anti-establishment views". The Cwrt Tafarn estate in Llantrisant, Rhondda Cynon Taf (Image: Conor Gogarty ) Before moving to Llantrisant, Dighton was living in Preston where he had a mental breakdown and went missing. After resurfacing and finding accommodation at Cwrt Tafarn estate, his family member contacted social services with concerns he was not meeting his own basic needs. Dighton had been sleeping on the floor and his flat was in disarray. But the council reportedly said they could not intervene because he "did not meet the criteria" as he was holding down a job. The family member said Dighton posted racist comments on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. He had zero followers, though he appeared to pay for a 'blue tick' feature which boosts the reach of posts. His profile's handle was @VulkantheJust, an apparent reference to a Warhammer character, and his bio read: "Dammed [sic] before Birth." Although Dighton's posts can no longer be seen because of privacy settings, one post from four days before the attack appeared to refer to the recent death of a 12-year-old black girl who died from an allergic reaction. The wording is not visible, but the post prompted angry replies from X users calling Dighton a "sociopath" who "thinks his failures are somehow the fault of 12-year-old girls". When we visited the Cwrt Tafarn estate, neighbours told us Dighton could be extremely generous and had "a heart of gold" but that his mental health seemed to suffer from staying up all night on conspiracy-theory websites. "He was on about children getting sex education at the age of three," said one. "He was on about five-year-olds in Germany being taught to w**k. And the police being child molesters and perverts. He told us he was on the dark web and he was 'looking into it deep'. "He would talk about the government, then move onto the police, and then onto gaming, and then back to paedophiles. He had a massive problem with authority. I would say to him all the time: 'Get off the web. Whatever you're on, get off it.'" Wider problems with Prevent In March the head of Prevent, Michael Stewart, left the role after a damning review found the scheme had "prematurely" closed its case on Axel Rudakubana three years before he went on to murder three children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport. And in 2023 a review found Prevent had repeatedly "failed" to identify attackers and that there was a "sense of lost purpose" in the strategy. The following year the man who led the review, Sir William Shawcross, said key recommendations had yet to be actioned. In its response at the time, the Home Office said it was implementing them. The latest stats show Prevent is receiving more referrals but that a smaller percentage of those referrals are being adopted by a multi-agency panel for a potential package of support. In the year ending March 2024, there were 6,922 referrals to Prevent (up 1.5% on the previous year) while 893 individuals were discussed by a multi-agency panel (down 13%) and the number of cases actually adopted also dropped (by 7%). In 2021, Jake Davison fatally shot his mother and four other people in Plymouth. He had been referred to Prevent but an inquest jury found "a lack of scrutiny and professional curiosity at all levels". In the case of Dighton, the Old Bailey heard searches of his home revealed journals containing anti-immigrant ideology. As well as the attempted murder, he has admitted attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to Sergeant Richard Coleman, assaulting PC Joshua Emlyn, threatening PC Stephanie Fleming with an adapted wooden pole, attempted arson of a police van, two counts of criminal damage to police property, and possession of an adapted wooden pole, knife and hatchet. Before a sentence is passed the Old Bailey will hear evidence from the prosecutor to determine whether the attack had a terrorist purpose. Article continues below The Home Office, South Wales Police and Rhondda Cynon Taf council said they would not comment on the case until after sentencing. X has been approached for comment.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Uncontrolled crime is bankrupting Britain
Reading about criminal justice in Britain brings to mind ritual slaughter in ancient Greece. Killing a working ox was forbidden, but the sacrifice still had to be carried out. The compromise was simple: after a brief ceremonial trial, the knife used in the murder was found guilty, and thrown into the sea. Individual guilt was discharged, and life could carry on as before. It's at this point that the parallel breaks down. In Britain, the knife is blamed, or the retailer who sold it, or the fact that the blade had a point. Regulations are passed, societal guilt is discharged, hard decisions are avoided, and then life goes on for those who survive, while others continue to die preventable deaths at the hands of sociopathic criminals. This pattern is repeating itself again this week. The sentencing review published on Thursday tells judges to make greater use of 'community-based alternatives' to prison, with shoplifters and criminals convicted of assault among those to benefit from greater lenience. At the same time, campaigners are attempting to make the case that in order to cut knife crime, we need to make sure every knife sold in Britain is blunted at the end. I have every sympathy with those who want to stop something like Southport happening again. But the lesson there wasn't that kitchen knives up and down the country should be handed in as part of a great criminal amnesty. It was that the state needed to make use of the tools it already had. If a teenager is caught by police carrying a knife on public transport, and repeatedly referred to Prevent, they shouldn't be left free to carry out an attack. The lesson, in other words, isn't that we need to make life fractionally worse for everyone in exchange for a minimal reduction in risk. It's that we need targeted policing of the people who pose the greatest threat. This is a point that the Government is curiously resistant to internalising. Take 'Martyn's law', named after a victim of the Manchester Arena bombing. Among other measures, this regulation requires tiny venues to set out plans for dealing with terror attacks. This red tape is expected to cost businesses around £1.8bn, with an upper estimate of £4.9bn. The benefits, on the other hand, are between £8 mand £41m, mostly arising through the coincidental effects of CCTV and security guards in deterring crime; there is no actual evidence available for the law's effect on terrorism. Predictably, this is already making Britain a poorer, gloomier place, with a 150-year-old flower show among the law's victims. Then again, attempting to crack down on criminals imposes cost and inconvenience on the state, whereas red tape and regulation imposes it on everyone else. And so red tape and regulation is what we get, with no actual measurable reduction in risk. Terrorism is an extreme form of criminality, and this law is an extreme form of the general government response of regulating potential victims rather than redoubling policing of potential criminals. But the pattern holds across the distribution; we accept the state bending and warping society to minimise the damage offenders are able to inflict rather than demanding it works harder to keep us safe. And in the process, we accept billions of pounds of economic damage. What would an alternative approach look like? What if we attempted to cut crime rather than cut costs? Around the world, studies have found that a tiny fraction of offenders account for a vastly disproportionate share of criminal behaviour. In Sweden, for instance, just 1pc of the population accounts for over 63pc of all violent offences. In Britain, the distribution is similarly skewed: a small group of around 526,000 people – less than 1pc of the population – accounted for around 44pc of all convictions and cautions handed out between 2000 and 2021, averaging roughly 20 such punishments each. We know, also, that reoffending is rife. Around 26pc of those released from British prisons will reoffend within a year, and the longer the follow-up period is, the higher the reoffending rate rises. By 2009, over 70pc of those convicted in 2000 had been convicted of another offence. In other words, the pathway to a safer society is finding the extreme outliers, and jailing them. And we can put together a back of the envelope illustration of how much this could be worth. One study in the US found that raising incarceration rates by around 10pc would cut levels of violent crime by 4.6pc, and property crime by 2.5pc. Say, briefly, that these rates applied in Britain. In exchange for an additional 10,000 or so prisoners, we would see massive reductions in criminality. Putting a value on this is hard, but not impossible. In 2015-2016, for instance, the then-government calculated that crime against businesses and individuals was costing Britain roughly £59bn each year, with violent crime accounting for the majority. Uprate this figure for inflation, and it's in the region of £81bn. As researchers at Policy Exchange have noted, this figure is incomplete: only some crimes against businesses are included, and crimes against the public sector are left out entirely. Using their estimates, a 2.5pc reduction in crime against businesses would be worth £1bn a year on its own. At a cost to the state of about £57,000 per prison place. That's a roughly 2:1 benefit to cost ratio before we even begin to consider reduced crime against people; the value of tens of thousands of fewer violent offences, thefts, robberies and burglaries each year. Sometimes the solution to a problem is staring you in the face. We've trusted our population to cook with pointed knives and hold small fairs for centuries. Rather than restricting these liberties, we should be restricting those we offer to the criminal classes. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Separate radical Muslim prisoners to stop violence in Britain's jails
Islamist extremists in jails should be segregated from other prisoners, a leading counter-extremism expert has said. In an article for The Telegraph, Ghaffar Hussain, a former officer in the Government's Prevent counter-terrorism programme, said the UK should follow the example of countries such as France, Spain and Holland, where extremist prisoners were often separated from the general prison population. His comments come in the wake of a violent attack on officers by the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber. There are three 'separation units' in jails in England and Wales, including one at the high-security HMP Frankland jail in county Durham, where Hashem Abedi, the Manchester bomb plotter, attacked three officers with two home-made knives and boiling cooking oil. However, Mr Hussain said the units designed to isolate the most dangerous extremists were being under-used – two, including HMP Frankland, are currently out of commission – which 'raises concerns about the system's capacity to manage the increasing number of terrorist inmates'. This weekend it emerged that Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, had allegedly thrown boiling water over an officer at HMP Belmarsh on Thursday. The alleged attack is being investigated by police. 'Without comprehensive reforms, including enhanced staff training, better resource allocation, and a deeper understanding of extremist ideologies, the prison system will continue to fall short in its efforts to de-radicalise extremists,' said Mr Hussain. 'The UK's approach contrasts with strategies employed in other European countries. In the Netherlands, Spain and France, extremist prisoners are often segregated from the general population, preventing them from influencing other inmates. 'These countries have reported improved prison safety and more effective targeting of counter-radicalisation interventions. For example, France has established specialist units within high-security prisons to assess and rehabilitate radicalised offenders, followed by continued support post-release.' Mr Hussain said Britain's prisons risked not only being ineffective in rehabilitating extremists but could also be contributing to the spread of extremist ideologies by failing to separate Islamists. He said the attack by Abedi was a 'glaring reminder' of the threat from extremists inside and outside prisons. 'It also shows how our prison system is allowing radical ideologies to fester and grow, so they can then spill back out onto our streets,' he said. 'Reports have said that prison staff often lack the training and confidence to distinguish between genuine religious practices and extremist behaviour. This uncertainty can lead to either overreaction or, more commonly, inaction. 'Overcrowding, understaffing, and the resulting stress create an environment where radical ideologies can thrive. Islamist gangs exploit these conditions, offering protection and a sense of belonging to vulnerable inmates. 'The rise in Muslim inmate numbers, driven by both sentencing and conversions, has been linked to the influence of these gangs. The erosion of authority within prisons allows these groups to enforce their own rules, sometimes through makeshift Sharia courts. 'Staff intimidation and corruption make the problem worse, with some wardens bribed to smuggle contraband or overlook illegal behaviour.' Our prisons are incubators of extremism and terrorism. The brutal attack by Hashem Abedi, the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber, on prison officers at HMP Frankland is a glaring reminder of the threat we face from extremists inside and outside our prisons, writes Ghaffar Hussain. It also shows how our prison system is allowing radical ideologies to fester and grow, so they can then spill back out on to our streets. The attack is not an isolated case. In 2019, Usman Khan, a convicted bomb plotter, knifed two young people to death at Fishmongers' Hall in London shortly after his release. Similarly, Sudesh Amman, released in early 2020, injured two individuals in a stabbing spree in Streatham before being shot dead by police. These incidents underscore a troubling pattern – the UK's prison system is failing to de-radicalise extremist offenders and, in some cases, may be exacerbating the problem. There is a real lack of expertise in prisons on how to counter extremist ideologies. Without a clear grasp of the motivations driving radicalisation, any attempted interventions often miss the mark. For instance, the flagship government Healthy Identity Intervention programme, designed to address extremist beliefs, has been widely derided for its ineffectiveness. Reports have said that prison staff often lack the training and confidence to distinguish between genuine religious practices and extremist behaviour. This uncertainty can lead to either overreaction or, more commonly, inaction. Ian Acheson, a former prison governor who led a 2016 review into Islamist extremism in prisons, highlighted this issue, stating that there was an 'institutional timidity' and an unwillingness to confront the problem directly. He noted that the prison service had been 'asleep for the last six years' in understanding the nature and extent of this problem. Mr Acheson's review made 69 recommendations, but these were 'conflated' into 11 in the official response, with some key suggestions rejected or only partially implemented. For instance, his proposal to ban attendance at Friday prayers for those who disrupt or abuse faith activity was dismissed, with officials citing existing powers for governors. Moreover, the process of referring prisoners to separation centres designed to isolate radicalisers is currently underused with only a fraction of the available places in these centres being occupied. Overcrowding, understaffing, and the resulting stress create an environment where radical ideologies can thrive. Islamist gangs exploit these conditions, offering protection and a sense of belonging to vulnerable inmates. The rise in Muslim inmate numbers, driven by both sentencing and conversions, has been linked to the influence of these gangs. The erosion of authority within prisons allows these groups to enforce their own rules, sometimes through makeshift Sharia courts. Staff intimidation and corruption make the problem worse, with some wardens bribed to smuggle contraband or overlook illegal behaviour. The UK's approach contrasts with strategies employed in other European countries. In the Netherlands, Spain and France, extremist prisoners are often segregated from the general population, preventing them from influencing other inmates. These countries have reported improved prison safety and more effective targeting of counter-radicalisation interventions. For example, France has established specialist units within high-security prisons to assess and rehabilitate radicalised offenders, followed by continued support post-release. In response to the growing threat, the UK has implemented separation centres within certain prisons to isolate the most dangerous extremists. However, only one such centre remains operational, raising concerns about the system's capacity to manage the increasing number of terrorist inmates. Without comprehensive reforms, including enhanced staff training, better resource allocation, and a deeper understanding of extremist ideologies, the prison system will continue to fall short in its efforts to de-radicalise extremists. So our prisons risk remaining not just ineffective in rehabilitating extremists but may also contribute to the spread of extremist ideologies. As Ian Acheson aptly stated: 'Broken staff cannot help fix broken people.' Ghaffar Hussain is a counter-extremism worker and former Prevent officer Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
