UK journalists can describe Israel's attack on Gaza as "genocide"

There is a huge argument among the British public about whether Israel's attack on Gaza can be categorised as genocide or whether that description is inflammatory and entirely wrong.

However, we now have an adjudication by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) which in effect clears the path for journalists to describe the IDF's attack and destruction of Gaza as genocide.

To be clear, The Times newspaper has a short article on this with the headline: "Press clear to call Gaza genocide". The first paragraph reads: "News organisations are entitled to describe Israel's military campaign in Gaza as genocide, the press watchdog has ruled."

What happened is this. Ipso rejected a complaint against a Scottish newspaper. That paper used the word "genocide" in a headline. Ipso said that they were not in a position to adjudicate on the actions of Israel and therefore they did not uphold the complaint.

Of course, Jewish campaigners are incensed and rejected this finding as "laughable".

Jewish campaigners would argue that the allegation of genocide is unproven and that using the word promoted anti-Semitism.

Of course, it would but I think you will find that it is agreed that Benjamin Netanyahu's administration has caused a surge in anti-Semitism in the UK because of the destruction of Gaza which I would suggest the majority of people saw as unjustified, cruel and an act of genocide. I will remain neutral on this but I lean towards the genocide argument.

Jewish campaigners would say that the only body entitled to make a finding of genocide would be the International Court of Justice. This has not happened.

At the time of the complaint, the International Court of Justice was in the process of considering allegations of genocide brought against Israel.

Accordingly, Ipso came to the conclusion that "Absent a legal ruling to this effect, the committee was not in a position to determine whether the article was inaccurate, misleading or distorted on this point."

A spokesperson for the Campaign against Anti-Semitism, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph said: "This decision is laughable. Do people still not understand that repeatedly asserting that the Jewish state has committed genocide - when no independent and competent judicial body has made such a determination - contributes to the environment of hostility towards Jewish people."

Of course it does. That's a given I suspect. But it doesn't change the fact that this might be genocide and it certainly looks like it. The problem is not the description or the use of the word. The problem is Benjamin Netanyahu and his administration in deciding to flatten Gaza thereby killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians including children and even babies.

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Conflicting Signals From the Top: Rubio’s “Mission Accomplished” vs Trump’s Threat of Renewed Bombing

The American administration’s handling of the Iran crisis has once again exposed a deeper problem: contradictory messaging at the very top, producing confusion among allies, adversaries, and even within Washington itself. The clearest example came in the stark contrast between Senator Marco Rubio’s recent declaration that Operation Epic Fury was “completed” and its objectives “met”, and President Trump’s subsequent warning that the United States would “bomb the hell out of Iran” if Tehran refused to come to an agreement.

Rubio’s statement was unambiguous. He presented Epic Fury as a finished, self‑contained military operation, one that had successfully degraded Iran’s defensive infrastructure and achieved the goals set out by the administration. His tone was that of closure: the operation was over, the mission accomplished, and the United States was transitioning to a defensive posture. This message was clearly intended to reassure markets, calm regional partners, and signal that Washington was not preparing for further escalation.

Yet within hours, President Trump delivered a message that pointed in the opposite direction. His threat to resume heavy bombing if Iran did not accept U.S. terms suggested that the crisis was far from resolved. Instead of reinforcing Rubio’s narrative of completion, Trump’s remarks reopened the possibility of renewed conflict. The contrast was so sharp that it effectively nullified the administration’s attempt to project stability.

This is not an isolated incident. The pattern of mixed signals has become a defining feature of the administration’s foreign‑policy communication. Officials attempt to present a controlled, strategic posture, while the President often adopts a far more confrontational tone. The result is a form of policy whiplash: allies are unsure which message reflects actual U.S. intentions, adversaries struggle to interpret the real red lines, and analysts are left trying to reconcile statements that simply do not align.

The deeper issue is not merely rhetorical inconsistency but the impression of disorder at the top. When one senior figure declares a major operation complete and another threatens to restart it, the administration appears divided, reactive, and strategically incoherent. In high‑stakes situations—especially involving Iran—such contradictions carry real risks. Misinterpretation can lead to miscalculation, and miscalculation can lead to escalation.

In short, the Rubio–Trump contrast is more than a communications glitch. It is a symptom of a broader structural problem: a leadership team that cannot consistently speak with one voice, even in moments of crisis.

This is another example of the chaotic administration managed by Trump. He is not a manager in any sense. Americans wanted a non-politician as president. Beware what you wish as they have brought a sense of chaos to America as Trump also creates a chaotic international scene.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Amanda Knox and the Strength Behind Her “Good Face”

A 'good face' is one that is open and which projects decency and honesty. It is synonymous with what I would call 'adult innocence'. This is not naivety. Not all all. It is a sign of inner strength. Knox is a good person I'd say.

Amanda Knox appeared in the papers again this week — not for anything to do with her long legal ordeal in Italy, but because she’s performing stand‑up comedy at the Edinburgh Festival. It’s an unexpected career choice, but it reveals something important about her character. Knox has always had a face that people read as open, honest and fundamentally decent. What’s striking is that this impression has survived everything she has been through.

A “good face” isn’t about prettiness or symmetry. It’s about the absence of bitterness, the lack of emotional armour, and a kind of adult innocence that comes from strength rather than naivety. Knox’s expression has always carried that quality. Her eyes are unguarded, her brow relaxed, and her overall demeanour suggests someone who has not been twisted by trauma. Many people who endure far less end up looking permanently wary or compressed. She didn’t.

Her decision to turn her own story into comedy underlines that resilience. Stand‑up is one of the most exposing art forms. You stand alone, with no script to hide behind, and invite strangers to judge you in real time. Doing that with material drawn from the darkest years of your life requires emotional clarity, not denial. It shows that Knox has processed her past rather than being defined by it.

Comedy also allows her to reclaim the narrative. For years, the world projected onto her whatever it wanted to see: guilt, innocence, seduction, naivety, cunning, victimhood. On stage, she sets the frame. She decides the tone. She chooses the meaning. That’s not just bravery; it’s psychological sovereignty.

What makes Knox interesting today is that her face still reflects the qualities people sensed in her before the media storm: openness, steadiness, and a lack of hidden malice. It’s the look of someone who went through hell but didn’t let it corrode her. That combination — adult innocence plus emotional strength — is rare. And it explains why her return to public life feels less like reinvention and more like a continuation of who she always was.

This is not a good video but the opening image shows her 'good face'! 😎😃

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Raducanu appears to be dropping out of professional tennis

Short post - just a spur of the moment thought based on yet more news that Emma Raducanu is missing a host of tennis tournaments - the whole of the clay court season? - because of ill-health. But is it really ill health - meaning physical ill health? I don't think that it is as straightforward as that. I could be wrong. 

But a couple of years ago I predicted that Raducanu would drop out of pro tennis early as it is too demanding for her emotionally.

I believe that she suffers from anxiety brought about by the demands of professional tennis:

https://cat-chitchat.pictures-of-cats.org/2024/01/anxiety-plagues-emma-raducanu-rather.html

And I sense that her current lengthy absence from the game is partly due to anxiety and not entirely due to post viral illness as consistently stated in the news media. She is the most injury prone professional tennis player on the planet - male or female - it seems to me. This can't just be about physical injuries.

She seems to have an underlying desire to get off the court as the experience is too emotionally uncomfortable for her.

Her constant changing of coaches is also a symptom of anxiety. She is searching for a father figure to reassure her. A magic formula in support. She won't and can't find it as the solution comes from within. 

I sense that her father has created this dependency.

Just a thought. On the fly. Bye bye.

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

AI’s Built‑In Safety Systems Are Hindering Criminals — and Quietly Helping Law Enforcement

Intro: the article below was written by AI under my precise instructions. Videos on YouTube paint a different picture to the one stated in the post. The situation is confused. Interestingly, a huge number of YouTube videos are only getting 1-20 views! Next to nothing. I wonder if YouTube is drowning in videos that are simply not interesting to the public. And/or AI created videos are swamping the website. I think AI will do a lot of harm to YouTube. Fake videos which are excellent in their production are what I am referring to.

---------------------

Recent research suggesting that cybercriminals are struggling to adopt artificial intelligence highlights a broader and increasingly important reality: mainstream AI systems are structurally designed to resist misuse, and this design unintentionally strengthens the position of law enforcement. While AI is not built as a policing tool, its safety architecture makes it far more difficult for criminals to exploit — and that has significant implications for crime prevention and public safety.

At the core of modern AI development is a simple principle: do not enable harm. Major AI providers embed extensive safeguards that prevent models from offering procedural guidance on illegal activities, bypassing security systems, exploiting vulnerabilities, or evading detection. These systems are trained to decline requests that could facilitate wrongdoing, even when the user’s intent is ambiguous. As a result, criminals cannot rely on AI for the kind of detailed, step‑by‑step instructions that would meaningfully enhance their operations.

This refusal behaviour is not accidental. It is the product of deliberate design choices, including filtered training data, reinforcement learning with human feedback, and rule‑based safety layers. These mechanisms ensure that when a user attempts to solicit harmful information, the AI either declines outright or redirects the conversation toward lawful, high‑level explanations. For criminals, this means AI cannot be used as a shortcut to expertise. For law enforcement, it means a powerful potential tool is effectively off the table for those who would misuse it.

Another challenge criminals face is the lack of precision and repeatability. Even when they attempt to disguise their intentions, AI systems avoid providing actionable detail in sensitive areas. Criminal activity often depends on reliable, consistent instructions. AI, by design, introduces uncertainty and vagueness in high‑risk contexts, making it unsuitable for planning or executing illegal operations. This unreliability further reduces AI’s value to criminals.

Moreover, mainstream AI platforms maintain logs, audit trails, and usage monitoring — not for policing, but for safety, quality control, and abuse prevention. Criminals are acutely aware that their interactions may be traceable. This pushes them away from regulated AI systems and toward unregulated, offline, or custom‑built models. Ironically, this migration itself can be informative: when criminals abandon mainstream tools, it reveals the types of capabilities they are seeking and the limitations they face.

The cumulative effect is that AI raises the barrier to entry for criminal activity. Opportunistic offenders who might once have benefited from easy access to technical knowledge now find themselves blocked. More sophisticated criminals must invest in specialised tools, custom models, or human expertise — all of which increase cost, risk, and visibility. In this way, AI functions much like improved locks, stronger authentication, or better surveillance systems: it doesn’t eliminate crime, but it makes it harder, slower, and more detectable.

While AI is not a law‑enforcement instrument, its safety‑first design means it naturally aligns with the goals of crime prevention. By refusing to assist with harmful activity and by limiting the operational value criminals can extract, AI becomes an indirect but meaningful ally in the effort to reduce and contain crime.

--------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.