Garrick Higgo is a left-handed American professional golfer who was until the end of play yesterday competing in the fourth major golf tournament: the PGA (Professional Golfers' Association - an American major golf tournament).
In the first round he was late on the tee and incurred a 2-stroke penalty. He still managed to shoot 1 under par for the round but shot 6 over in the second round to finish at 5 over par.
The cut was at 4 over par. He missed it by one. For non-golfers missing the cut at the halfway stage of a four round pro-tournament (the standard) means that the golfer does not receive prize money. It is all expenses for the golfer and it is expensive to play in these tournaments.
And so for Higgo this was a catastrophic loss. His excuse for not making the first tee in time? He did not want to hang around the tee for a few minutes waiting to tee-off because it was a little cold!
Higgo has learned a $22,000 lesson. That amount is the last place prize. If he had done well be could have won considerably more, perhaps well over $100k.
Video - he kind of makes excuses for being careless. He fought the 2-stroke penalty without success.
---------------
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.
There is a reported trend in the news of churchgoers using AI to have a chat with God. I am sure that many of these people genuinely believe that they are chatting with God because AI sounds like God! Because AI is smart, knowledgeable, reassuring and wise. And it is programmed to draw in users to chat more and more. To suck them into a fantasy world where they start to believe that AI is God. I am thinking of vulnerable people who are sadly suffering from mental health issues and seeking some sort of meaning in a troubled world.
Some more:
Artificial intelligence now speaks in a calm, confident, endlessly patient voice. It never gets tired. It never snaps. It never says “I don’t know.” For many people, especially those who are lonely or struggling, that voice can feel like comfort. But this is exactly why a new trend is emerging — people using AI to “talk to God.” And in a troubled world, this could become a serious problem.
The danger isn’t that AI is pretending to be divine. The danger is that it sounds close enough to fool vulnerable people. Modern chatbots are designed to feel human: warm tone, reassuring language, instant answers. They can quote scripture, explain theology, and offer emotional support. They can even mirror your mood and style. Put all that together and you get something that feels wise, friendly and spiritually authoritative.
But AI has no soul, no conscience, no understanding. It doesn’t know what it’s saying. It simply predicts the next likely sentence. Yet to someone who is grieving, anxious or isolated, the illusion of a caring, all‑knowing presence can be powerful. Humans naturally project agency onto anything that talks back. If a machine replies in a voice that feels gentle and godlike, some people will start to believe it.
This becomes even more dangerous in a world already full of fear, conflict and uncertainty. When people feel overwhelmed, they look for guidance. If they turn to an AI “God,” they may take its words as divine instruction. That can lead to confusion, emotional harm, or even dangerous decisions. And because AI sometimes invents facts or misquotes scripture, the advice can be completely wrong while still sounding holy.
There’s also a deeper issue. Religious traditions rely on human connection — real pastors, real communities, real accountability. An AI system has none of that. It cannot care. It cannot take responsibility. It cannot understand suffering. Yet it can imitate empathy so well that people may trust it more than they trust actual humans.
This trend is still developing, but the trajectory is clear. As AI becomes more lifelike, the risk grows. In a fragile world, people may start seeking comfort in a machine that only sounds divine. That is not a spiritual encounter. It is a technical illusion with real emotional consequences.
The challenge now is to recognise the danger early, before the illusion becomes a substitute for genuine human or spiritual support.
A linked topic which is interesting:
--------------------
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.
This is a clever and ambitious website and one built on sound thinking. The threat of nuclear war is not infrequently discussed in the newspapers today. The threat comes from Putin and the Kremlin more often than not. Putin and his supporters are, it itching it appears to send a nuclear bomb towards the UK.
The actual threat of nuclear war is probably quite (very!) remote for obvious reasons. However, many people are probably genuinely concerned about it. There appears to be a bit of a movement towards preparing for possible nuclear war by storing foods and general provisions in a bunker.
The best that the average citizen can do if and when nuclear war is about to break out is to head to a privately constructed concrete bunker in which there are enough provisions to keep the family alive for a couple of months.
But then we have the other people; the billionaires. The people who can run away from urban environments. Depart the big cities and head off in private jets to their second or third home in remote places such as on one of the islands of New Zealand, for example. New Zealand is on the edge of mainstream world populations and therefore less likely to be affected by nuclear fallout or indeed be bombed.
A screenshot from Kyle's website.
This leads me nicely to the concept as devised by Kyle MacDonald, an artist in Los Angeles who works with computer code.
He has created a website which maps in real time the movement of private jets. He says the measure of an impending nuclear apocalypse will be the sudden mass movement of the rich in their private jets to remote places when departing city centres.
His website filters data from a flight tracking service to count business jets flying over the past half hour to compare it with the same half-hour in previous weeks. The algorithm adjusts for holiday periods when of course more flights are expected.
Kyle said: "My general goal here is to give people that hacker mentality to be able to look at what's happening around us and not to see noise, but to actually see some patterns. We are not completely downtrodden and lost of all Hope."
The Times describes his Apocalypse Early Warning System as a "helpful service that tries to monitor the likelihood of imminent nuclear catastrophe by charting how many millionaires are airborne."
Here is the status as per Kyle as at 15:32 (GMT) on 11/05/2026:
Emergency level 1/5
733/31,466 planes airborne
8,582 max people airborne
Deviation: +89(+1.0σ)
Last Update: May 11, 2:30 PM GMT+1
-----------------
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.
Dogs have a way of nudging humans into conversations we might never have started on our own. They pull us into parks, onto pavements, and into the paths of strangers who suddenly feel less like strangers because there’s a wagging tail between you. And while Frontline’s recent survey didn’t touch on dating at all, it did remind us of something deeper: people who care for animals tend to show up in the world with a certain warmth, steadiness, and decency. Those qualities just happen to be the same ones that make someone quietly attractive.
The Frontline survey focused on how pet owners behave — how often they walk their dogs, how confident they feel about first aid, how much responsibility they take on. It wasn’t about romance, but the subtext is obvious. A person who gets up early to walk a dog in the rain is a person who can be relied on. Someone who knows their pet’s quirks, moods, and routines is someone who pays attention. These are the small, unglamorous habits that make a person feel grounded and safe to be around.
And that’s where the dating angle slips in, even if Frontline never asked about it. Dogs make us visible. They pull us out of our private bubbles and into shared spaces where conversations happen naturally. A dog sniffing another dog is the oldest icebreaker in the world. A puppy rolling on its back is an invitation for a stranger to smile, pause, and say something kind. Even the most reserved Londoner softens when a dog trots past with that earnest, hopeful look only dogs can manage.
There’s also the simple truth that dogs signal character. They suggest routine, empathy, and a life that isn’t entirely self‑centred. In a world where many people feel overworked, overstimulated, and slightly disconnected, that signal carries weight. It’s not about being a “dog person” so much as being someone who can care for something beyond themselves.
So while Frontline didn’t produce a dating survey, the connection is still there, woven into the everyday reality of dog ownership. Dogs don’t just make us more active or more responsible — they make us more approachable. They create moments of shared humanity in parks, on towpaths, outside cafés, and along the Thames. They remind us that most people are kinder than they look when they’re staring at their phones.
And sometimes, in those small moments — a laugh, a shared comment, two dogs tangling leads — something begins.
Russia’s full‑scale invasion has produced a strategic surprise: Ukraine has become one of the world’s fastest‑moving defence innovators, while Russia has exposed the deep structural weaknesses of its own manufacturing culture. The contrast is now so stark that it is reshaping the battlefield — and potentially the long‑term balance of power.
Note: this was written by AI after a quite lengthy discussion between me and AI and thereafter precise instructions to write the article based on the discussion.
Ukraine: A Rapidly Evolving, Tech‑Driven Defence Ecosystem
Under existential pressure, Ukraine has transformed itself into a distributed, agile, innovation‑first war economy. What began as improvisation has matured into a national ecosystem of:
drone manufacturers
AI‑driven targeting platforms
electronic‑warfare startups
rapid‑prototyping workshops
battlefield‑linked software teams
This is not a traditional defence industry. It behaves more like a network of startups, each iterating at Silicon‑Valley speed, guided by real‑time feedback from the front.
The Tryzub Laser: A Symbol of Ukraine’s New Capabilities
A perfect example of this transformation is Ukraine’s newly revealed Tryzub laser air‑defence system, designed to shoot down Russian drones using directed‑energy technology.
The Tryzub is significant because:
it’s home‑grown, not imported
it neutralises drones without expensive missiles
it reflects rapid prototyping and battlefield‑driven design
it shows Ukraine moving into next‑generation weaponry faster than many NATO states
This is the kind of system that emerges only from a fast, decentralised, tech‑driven ecosystem — exactly what Ukraine has built.
Russia: A State‑Run, Clunky, Soviet‑Style Machine
Russia’s defence industry, by contrast, remains trapped in a model that rewards:
hierarchy
obedience
centralisation
quantity over quality
outdated tooling
slow decision cycles
Russia can produce more, but not better. Its factories rely on imported machine tools, foreign electronics, and decades‑old production lines. Even before sanctions, Russian manufacturing struggled with:
inconsistent tolerances
poor quality control
corruption
rigid bureaucracy
obsolete industrial culture
The result is predictable: Russia can churn out artillery shells and basic drones, but it cannot match Ukraine’s pace of innovation or the sophistication of its rapidly evolving systems.
Two Different Centuries on the Same Battlefield
The war has become a clash between:
Ukraine’s 21st‑century model:
decentralised
data‑driven
adaptive
tech‑intensive
globally integrated
Russia’s 20th‑century model:
centralised
industrial
slow
manpower‑heavy
inward‑looking
One side is learning and improving every week.
The other is repeating the same patterns with slightly more drones and slightly fewer chips.
Why This Matters Strategically
Ukraine’s transformation has three major consequences:
It offsets Russia’s numerical advantage.
Smart, cheap, rapidly iterated systems — like the Tryzub laser — can neutralise mass.
It attracts foreign funding and partnerships.
The EU’s €90 billion lending capacity and Gulf interest in Ukrainian defence tech give Kyiv long‑term financial depth.
It creates a self‑sustaining defence sector.
Ukraine is no longer just a recipient of aid — it is becoming a supplier of next‑generation military expertise.
Russia cannot replicate this. Its system is structurally incapable of decentralised innovation, rapid iteration, or private‑sector integration.
The Bottom Line
The war has revealed a fundamental truth:
Ukraine is becoming a self‑funding, tech‑driven defence ecosystem.Russia is stuck in a state‑run, slow, Soviet‑style model.
The unveiling of the Tryzub laser is not an isolated achievement — it is a symptom of a country that has embraced the future of warfare. And while this does not make Ukraine “unbeatable,” it does make Russia’s goal of defeating Ukraine on the battlefield increasingly unrealistic.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
At the end of the recent visit by King Charles III to the White House, President Trump told reporters that the USA needed more people like Charles as US citizens. Trump loves Charles's accent and his intelligent refinement. Charles was Oxbridge educated (Trinity College, Cambridge 1967-70 - see below) . He is not super-intelligent. Not at all. But he is industrious, very thoughtful and sensible. And sensitive to others. He has integrity (which occasionally lags as is the case for all humans).
Charles likes to gently take the piss out of Trump. He does it in a way which is entirely acceptable to Trump because it is refined. You can't criticise Trump or insult him. But Charles ribs Trump is a sophisticated way making it acceptable.
All the food - presumed excellent - was thrown in the waste bin after a shooter interrupted the White House correspondents' dinner. The food could not be redistributed I am told. More Trump waste. More Trump chaos. This would not have happened if Trump was not president. He attracts chaos. We don't know the motivation behind the shooting but to me it seems to be Trump motivated by which I mean an attempt to get at Trump. What other reason is plausible?
Correction! the press say this: Roughly 2,600 meals that went unserved at the White House Correspondents' dinner were donated to a good cause. So it went to a good cause? I hope so and that this is not just a bit of PR. I distrust this news slightly to be honest. The logistics of re-using it as suggested looks very hard to me.
Trump engenders chaos. He is an arch disruptor. Many Americans wanted politics to be disrupted but I am sure they did not want what Trump has brought to the White House. You'd be mad to want that.
Why couldn't the food be distributed to dog rescue shelters to feed the dogs?
-----------------
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.
When the courts ruled that a major set of U.S. tariffs had been imposed without proper legal authority, it didn’t just end a policy — it created a huge administrative mess. The decision means companies that paid those duties can now claim refunds, and the total bill could run into the tens or even hundreds of billions. But getting that money back isn’t simple.
Every tariff payment is tied to a specific shipment, date, importer, and customs entry. That means millions of individual records have to be checked, verified, and matched to the right business. Customs and Border Protection has opened a new portal to handle claims, but trade experts say the workload is enormous. Processing refunds for years’ worth of imports will take time, staff, and painstaking paperwork.
Industry groups and legal analysts have described the situation as a “massive administrative unwind” — far more complicated than imposing the tariffs in the first place. When a policy is later ruled unlawful, the clean‑up is always harder: systems have to be reversed, records re‑examined, and money redistributed entry by entry.
For businesses, the refunds are welcome. For the government agencies handling them, it’s a long, resource‑heavy job created by a policy that didn’t stand up in court. The result is a national exercise in re‑processing, re‑checking, and refunding on a scale rarely seen in U.S. trade administration.
This huge administrative headache has been caused by Trump's bad decision making. He is a serial bad decision maker. This refund will bog down administrators for years when they could be doing something more productive to improve the lives of American citizens. Trump is a ghastly failure at the moment and I don't see him improving.
The failure of the Iran war he started - allegedly illegally - is an even worse example of waste. It is costing Americans $35 billion at this time (25th April 2026) just in munitions. Then add in the cost of living crisis caused or exacerbated by this war and you can how bad Trump is.
----------
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.
Russia is entering a moment of rare political unease. Two developments, seemingly separate, now illuminate the same underlying truth: the country’s leadership is looking backwards while the pressures on society are pushing forwards. The result is a widening gap between the Kremlin’s self‑image and the lived reality of its citizens.
For years, observers have noted that President Vladimir Putin’s governing style draws heavily on the political psychology of the Soviet strongman era. Analysts describe a worldview shaped by suspicion, centralisation of authority, and a belief in the necessity of a powerful state standing firm against internal and external threats. This is not a literal revival of Stalinism, but it does echo the logic of an earlier age: the conviction that stability comes from control, that dissent signals weakness, and that history’s verdict can be rewritten through force of will.
This restorationist instinct has long been visible in the Kremlin’s rhetoric. The collapse of the Soviet Union is repeatedly framed as a geopolitical tragedy, and Russia’s modern trajectory is cast as a mission to reclaim lost stature. Yet this vision sits uneasily with the country that actually exists today—a society younger, more urban, more digitally connected, and less shaped by Soviet memory than the leadership that governs it.
That tension was thrown into sharp relief this week when Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party, issued a stark warning in the State Duma. “Revolution is in the air once more,” he declared, arguing that the economy has deteriorated so sharply that the conditions resemble those that preceded 1917. Zyuganov is no radical outsider; his party functions as a loyal opposition, and he has spent decades operating within the system. For him to invoke the spectre of revolution is therefore not a prediction but a signal—an admission that the economic strain is becoming politically dangerous.
The pressures are real. Inflation is eroding household budgets, the ruble has weakened significantly, and military spending now dominates the federal budget. Independent economists estimate that the cost of basic goods is rising far faster than official figures suggest. For many Russians, the promise of stability—the cornerstone of Putin’s legitimacy—feels increasingly fragile.
Zyuganov’s intervention also reflects a deeper structural problem. A leadership oriented toward the past is confronting a population whose concerns are rooted firmly in the present. Younger Russians, in particular, show little appetite for imperial nostalgia or the revival of old geopolitical myths. Their priorities are economic security, opportunity, and a future not defined by historical grievance.
None of this means Russia stands on the brink of upheaval. The state’s security apparatus remains powerful, dissent is tightly controlled, and public protest carries severe consequences. But the warning from within the system should not be dismissed. When economic pressure intensifies and political imagination narrows, societies become brittle.
Russia’s challenge is not simply economic or political. It is generational. A country cannot move forward if its leadership is anchored in a past that fewer and fewer citizens recognise as their own.
-----------------
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.
If you’re planning a trip to Europe with your dog or cat, there’s an important rule change you need to know about. From 22 April 2026, EU pet passports are no longer valid for people who live in Great Britain. Even if your pet has an EU‑issued passport from years ago, you can’t use it to enter the EU anymore. Instead, you must get an Animal Health Certificate (AHC) before every trip.
This change closes a long‑standing loophole. After Brexit, UK pet passports stopped being accepted by the EU, but many British travellers continued using EU‑issued passports obtained through vets in France, Spain, or Belgium. These passports allowed repeat travel for years. The EU has now tightened the rules so that only people whose main home is inside the EU can use EU pet passports. If you live in Great Britain, you must use an AHC instead.
An AHC must be issued by an authorised vet within 10 days of travel. It confirms your pet is microchipped, has a valid rabies vaccination, and is fit to travel. Each certificate is single‑use, meaning you need a new one every time you leave Great Britain for the EU. Once you’ve entered the EU, the certificate stays valid for up to six months for onward travel and for returning to the UK, as long as rabies vaccinations remain valid.
If you try to travel with the wrong paperwork—such as an EU pet passport—your pet may be refused entry, sent back to the UK, or placed in quarantine. Border officials check documents on arrival, not afterwards, so it’s essential to get the certificate before you go.
The good news is that holidays with your pets are still very possible. You just need to plan ahead, book a vet appointment in good time, and make sure you have the correct paperwork for every trip.
-------------
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.
The UK Prime Minister, Sir Kier Starmer, is an insecure man, in my opinion. He might even suffer from imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome is the persistent belief that your achievements are accidental, fragile, or undeserved. You feel like a fraud waiting to be exposed, even when evidence shows you’re capable. It creates self‑doubt, anxiety, and a tendency to minimise success, pushing you to overwork while never feeling genuinely competent.
Why do I believe this? Because he clings to political associates and friends and refuses to sack them (but fastidiously sacks civil servants to pass the buck). The classic is the Mandelson affair in which he appointed Mandelson against all rational assessments because he was friendly with Mandelson and wanted a friend on the other side of the 'pond' to deal with the impossible Trump.
Starmer insisted on Mandelson's appointment before vetting against advice. The whole affair has been extensively reported. The world knows the gory details.
And he hired his cabinet members because he is friendly with them and he refuses to sack them - the chancellor, Reeves, comes to mind - when they are screwing up. He is robustly loyal to his cabinet members. He must know that Reeves has to go but refuses to countenance it. Update: in order to save himself there is talk that he will sack Reeves after the May 7th bloodbath. He does like to sack people to save his own skin - to divert responsibility.
He stays loyal because he needs them as much as they need him. He needs them to reassure him. To create a buffer to the real and now hostile British public who have largely given up on Starmer. He is a dead duck. A dead man walking. A dud.
Note: the Mandelson problem has strained his relations with cabinet members, perhaps to breaking point in some instances.
Starmer is deeply unpopular with the British public. UK pollsters (YouGov and Statista), both reporting –45 as his latest net favourability/approval score. Polling organisations report Starmer’s popularity using net approval ratings, which currently sit around the mid‑negative range. Surveys show more people express unfavourable than favourable views, producing consistently negative net approval scores that indicate widespread public dissatisfaction at this point in time.
Several UK polling trackers note that Keir Starmer’s current net approval rating is lower than Liz Truss’s rating at the end of her premiership, which was typically reported in the –30s to –40s depending on the pollster.
He is attacked daily, hourly in fact. He was insecure before becoming the PM and now it is worse.
-------------------
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.
Summary: eating fruit, vegetables and fish and less or no processed foods and/or saturated fats will likely reduce your chances of contracting the life changing Parkinson's disease because the healthier foods help create a healthy gut microbiome. The gut microbiome is instrumental in managing the body's immune system and is therefore of vital importance.
Researchers have identified a strong connection between the gut microbiome and the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, suggesting that changes in gut bacteria may appear many years before the first motor symptoms.
Multiple studies led by University College London (UCL), working with international partners, analysed stool samples from people with Parkinson’s, healthy individuals, and people carrying the GBA1 gene variant, which increases Parkinson’s risk up to thirty‑fold.
They found that more than a quarter of the microbial species in the gut differ between people with Parkinson’s and healthy controls. These differences become more pronounced as the disease progresses.
Importantly, similar microbial patterns were also found in people who carry the GBA1 variant but have no symptoms, indicating that gut changes may precede the disease.
The microbiome of these genetically at‑risk individuals appears “intermediate” between healthy people and those with Parkinson’s, suggesting a gradual shift that mirrors early disease development.
These findings were replicated across cohorts in the UK, Italy, the United States, South Korea, and Türkiye, showing that the microbial signature is consistent across different populations and diets.
Scientists believe these gut‑based changes could serve as an early warning signal, enabling earlier diagnosis at a stage when more than half of dopamine‑producing neurons have not yet been lost.
Earlier detection could open the door to preventative treatments, including therapies that target the gut microbiome itself.
The research also suggests that diet may influence risk. People with more balanced, diverse diets were less likely to show microbiome patterns associated with Parkinson’s, raising the possibility that lifestyle changes could help delay or reduce disease progression.
Overall, the emerging evidence indicates that the gut may play a crucial role in the earliest stages of Parkinson’s disease, offering a promising new frontier for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.
-------------------------
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.
We all know that Tiger Woods is suffering the effects of severe damage to his body, fundamentally due to his extremely physical golf swing. Yes, he also suffers pain from his leg injury from that horrific car crash but at root his pain problems - and consequential opioid pain killer problems - stem from an enormously athletic golf swing generating a huge amount of power which enabled him to launch the golf ball great distances and thereby 'take' golf courses and fire very low scores.
To summarise: Tiger's golf swing was very demanding on his body and eventually it caused great back damaged requiring a lot of surgery and accompanying pain.
Carlos Alcaraz's tennis game has the same foundational problems: hugely athletic and demanding on his body. He is quick and he is rarely beaten by a ball because he forces his body to do exceptional things. He contorts his body and places huge stresses on it.
Despite being in his early 20s he is suffering serious injuries already which has led, recently, to him withdrawing from the Madrid Open. His form has dropped off a little due I would argue to his injuries and perhaps exhaustion. To maintain that level of physicality is exhausting.
Alcaraz told reporters that the injury “is more serious than any of us expected” and said he would “need to listen to my body” to avoid further damage. Wise words. He needs to protect his body going forward.
He has a game style - combined with his enormous natural talent - which will shorten his tennis career. If he modifies his game style to make it less physical he will be notably less successful. Catch 22.
All sports have been progressively more physical and therefore demanding on the anatomy of the sportsmen and women.
This leads to more injuries, more pain in old age after retirement, brain injuries in contact sports and in tennis a demand by the players to curtail the number of tournaments.
Crunch time is coming in golf - time to detune the ball and/or clubs to hit the ball shorter distances - and in tennis - to make is less demanding on the tennis players anatomy.
It should be noted that this argument only applies at present to the men's game. But I suspect that in due course it will apply to women as well.
-----------------
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.
There’s been a lot of talk in the UK recently about whether common flea treatments for cats and dogs might soon face new rules. The short version is this: the government is worried that some of the chemicals in popular flea products are ending up in rivers and harming wildlife. They’re now reviewing the situation, but they are not planning a total ban.
The concern centres on two insecticides: fipronil and imidacloprid. These are the active ingredients in many spot‑on flea treatments. They’re very effective at killing fleas, but they’re also extremely toxic to insects in the wider environment. Both chemicals are already banned for outdoor farming use because of the damage they can cause to bees and other pollinators.
So how are they getting into rivers? It turns out that the chemicals don’t just stay on the pet. They can wash off when a cat is bathed, when a dog swims, or even when owners wash their hands after applying the treatment. Wastewater treatment plants can’t remove these substances, so they pass straight through and end up in streams and rivers. Studies have found them in river water, sediments, fish, and even in the nests of wild birds that pick up pet hair for lining.
Because of this, the government is now considering whether flea products should become prescription‑only, meaning you’d need to get them through a vet or a qualified professional rather than buying them freely online or in shops. The aim is to reduce unnecessary routine use and make sure treatments are used only when needed.
Importantly, there is no plan to ban flea treatments altogether. Officials say these medicines are still important for animal health and welfare. The focus is on using them more carefully, not removing them from the market.
For cat owners, nothing changes right now. But it’s worth keeping an eye on the review. If rules do tighten, it may simply mean having a quick chat with your vet before buying your usual flea treatment. The goal is to protect both pets and the environment — and that’s something most of us can get behind.
----------------------
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.
1. Only buy from retailers you already know and trust
If you’ve never used the site before, skip it. A familiar and known website beats a flashy new one every time. I buy most of my online stuff (mainly functional items) on Amazon as they have a great returns policy and are reliable with fast delivery (I use Prime). Stick to 2 or 3 online retailers you have used before and trust. Don't branch out and use an unknown retailer because you are likely to be stung.
2. Stick to Amazon — but only sold by Amazon
Amazon’s own stock, own fulfilment, own returns. That’s the safe zone. Use Amazon Prime and don't deviate. I am not trying to promote Amazon. Just trying to avoid pain-in-the-arse scammers of which there are millions nowadays.
There has been a surge in fake retailer websites. Please be aware of this as it is a major problem.
3. Never follow ads to a shop
Not Google ads.
Not Instagram ads.
Not Facebook ads.
If you want Amazon, type amazon.co.uk yourself. That is AI advice. I don't do that. But it might be wise for extra certainty.
4. Treat “too good to be true” as “fake”
A £120 jumper for £39 is not a bargain.
It’s bait. Resist the temptation.
5. Check the domain, not the design
Scam sites look perfect.
Domains don’t lie:
Weird endings = avoid
Odd spellings = avoid
Recently registered = avoid
6. Don’t enter card details anywhere unfamiliar
If you’re hesitating, that’s your answer.
Close the tab.
7. Returns policy tells you everything
If it’s vague, missing, or copied from somewhere else, walk away.
8. When in doubt, don’t buy
There will always be another jumper, another sale, another shop.
Your money is worth more than their trick.
If you ignore this advice (!) here are some tips on checking for a fake website:
How to spot a clone site (even when it looks perfect)
Because the fakes are now extremely polished, the old advice (“look for the padlock”) is no longer enough. The more reliable red flags are:
Too-good-to-be-true pricing (even if only slightly cheaper than normal)
Odd domain endings (.shop, .top, .store, .xyz) or subtle misspellings
No physical address or a generic Gmail contact
No returns policy, or one copied verbatim from another retailer
Stock photos or product images that appear on multiple unrelated sites
Checkout pages that feel “off” or ask for unusual information
No social media presence, or brand accounts created very recently
The explosion in this problem is being fuelled by AI which can create a fake/duplicate website of a well-known retailer to order.
---------------------
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.
One benefit of AI - at least until we tire of it - is that there are now a high percentage of videos on YouTube that have been created by artificial intelligence. These videos are everywhere the YouTube website.
And prominent for me are those videos which present the science and thoughts of Richard Feynman. The man was brilliant but these videos are voiced by AI and the script is not written by Feynman but an anonymous - I presume - scientist or scientists. There are copycat versions all over the website too.
The videos explain conclusively and logically using the science of space/time, the speed of light and the vast distances of the universe that aliens cannot get to Earth and we can't get to see them on their planet either - if they exist. We just don't know.
People think there must be alien life out there because there are billions upon billions of opportunities for intelligent life to evolve. But the evolution of the human is astonishing and it is argued extremely rare - it took 3.5 billion years (3500000000)! Perhaps so rare that there is no other version of us or like us anywhere in our galaxy.
But there are 2-3 trillion galaxies! The point is that the science tells us that it is physically impossible or near impossible for aliens from a far off planet to visit planet Earth.
In effect humans on planet Earth are entirely alone in the black void of the silent universe. And we will remain that way for eternity or as long as the species we know as homo sapiens exists (probably a relative short time such as 10,000 more years due to the self-destructive nature of humans).
Here is one of probably hundreds of videos on this topic. I sense that many people are trying to jump on the Feynman bandwagon and creating their own versions of the same physics.
----------------
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.
For all the soft‑focus language about “new chapters” and “fresh starts,” the push to leave the $21 million Montecito mansion has a harder edge beneath it. Money isn’t the whole story — but it is undeniably part of the gravitational pull dragging the couple toward the exit. It may actually be the central reason. It has been coming when you think of the huge outgoings in maintaining this massive mansion - far too large in truth for their needs. They've burnt through the cash they earned when they were fresh on the scene having left the royal family and become independent. There was the novelty factor then. That's over. They can't earn what is required to maintain this home. That's my personal view and it is probably correct! 😉😎😱
Ah, I almost forgot. Harry is suing newspapers in the UK for hacking (The Sun & Daily Mail I recall but could be wrong). He will probably lose on my assessment. Wait and see. But it is said that his legal costs (or the costs of those suing the newspapers - more than just Harry) will (might) reach £38 million! Some disagree but I have read that number in The Times newspaper That will put a massive dent in his finances and the pain I believe is about to hit him. I think the house sale is in preparation for the exorbitant legal bill. He'll be broke and Meghan will have to do the earning! Not a good framework for a happy marriage I'd also say.
The numbers alone tell you why they have to exit this money pit. Maintaining a Montecito estate of that scale costs $5–6 million a year, once you factor in staff, upkeep, and the single biggest line item: private security. When the Netflix megadeal was active, that burn rate was manageable. With the partnership ended and no equivalent revenue stream replacing it, the arithmetic becomes less forgiving.
Then there’s the house itself. The property carries a $9.5 million mortgage, with monthly repayments estimated between $50,000 and $100,000. Even for wealthy public figures, that is a heavy fixed cost — and one that becomes harder to justify if the home no longer serves their strategic needs.
Some reports go further, suggesting Meghan has been “straddled with debt” from the LA move and sees selling the mansion as a way to reset financially while relocating closer to the industry power centres she wants access to. The sourcing is tabloid‑grade, but the logic aligns with the broader pattern: high costs, reduced income, and a desire to reposition.
And that repositioning matters. Montecito is beautiful, but it’s also quiet, remote, and socially inert for people trying to revive or expand entertainment careers. Meghan reportedly spends hours commuting to LA for meetings. Neighbours keep their distance. The area skews retirement‑village calm, not Hollywood‑adjacent dynamism.
So...money pressures are part of the reason, sitting alongside ambition, relevance, and geography. The couple aren’t broke, but they are living a lifestyle that demands constant high‑octane income. When the income dips and the career momentum stalls, even a $21 million mansion can start to feel like a liability rather than a sanctuary.
---------------------
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.
The video explains what looks like another bizarre strategy from Trump. It's not as mad as it first looks to give him credit (which I hate to do!). Frank Gardiner is one of the BBC's best reporters and he explains things really clearly in the video. Note: the US blockade blocks Iranian ships leaving and entering Iran's ports as I understand it.
Many commentators were and are flummoxed by the US strategy. But the idea is to force Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz by harming the country economically.
However, it is a very dangerous strategy, high risk and it might and quite possibly will backfire mainly because China will be forced to become directly involved as it gets a lot of its oil from Iran.
And what if a Chinese ship is boarded or fired upon by a US warship? This might end up with US fighting China as well as Iran.
News:
Update (written by AI on my strict instructions): Iran’s response to the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has been swift and deliberately unsettling. Within hours of Washington’s move, senior Iranian commanders warned that if the U.S. tries to choke Iran’s economy at its own front door, Tehran will answer by turning off the lights somewhere far more globally painful: the Red Sea.
The message was blunt. If America blocks Hormuz, Iran will “block all trade” through the Red Sea and, by extension, the Bab el‑Mandeb Strait — the narrow funnel that feeds the Suez Canal. It’s not an idle threat. Iran has spent years building the capability to project power far beyond its coastline, using a mix of naval assets, drones, and regional partners who can strike shipping lanes with deniable force. The point is simple: if Iran’s exports stop, everyone’s exports stop.
A Red Sea shutdown would be a gut punch to the global economy. Around a tenth of world trade moves through that corridor. Europe’s supply chains depend on it. Gulf oil heading west depends on it. Container ships already reroute at the first hint of trouble; a declared Iranian blockade would turn a strategic headache into a full‑blown crisis.
This is Iran signalling that the U.S. cannot isolate the conflict to one waterway. Close Hormuz, and Tehran will widen the battlefield to a second chokepoint — one that drags in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and every shipping insurer on the planet. It’s escalation by geography, and Iran knows exactly how much leverage that buys.
What would happen if the US bombed/shelled an Iranian ship carrying oil owned by China and destined for China. China owns the oil but not the sip? Chaos I'd say. And China won't be happy.
-----------------------------
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.
Op-ed: Trump's reckless and badly planned excursion into starting a war with Iran will cost each British citizen - many of whom are already broke - £480 more in 2026. Thanks President Trump. I think we can extrapolate that prediction to many other countries to varying amounts.
The extra cost of living due to the Iran war is, as predicted, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump and his team appear to have failed to foresee, which has forced up energy and gas (petrol) prices.
The £480 is based on the projected difference in household income, adjusted for size and composition as a result of inflation pushing up oil prices and the projected household energy price cap rising to £1929 in July.
Note: More than 2 child families in receipt of child benefit will see income increases! These are low income families that have been catapulted into a decent income level thanks to Starmer's generosity on welfare which the country cannot afford and which takes away from defence which needs urgent financial support in a more dangerous world.
Source: The Times 13th April 2026.
-------------
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.
The skin is often described as the body’s largest organ, but it is also one of its most complex ecosystems. Living across its surface is a vast community of bacteria, fungi, and microscopic organisms that together form the skin microbiome. Far from being passive passengers, these microbes play an essential role in regulating immunity, maintaining barrier function, and protecting us from pathogens. A biodiverse microbiome is particularly important: the wider the variety of microbes, the more resilient the system becomes.
As we age, this diversity naturally declines. Reduced sebum production, drier skin, and slower cell turnover create a less hospitable environment for beneficial microbes. Modern habits—frequent washing, harsh soaps, indoor living, and limited environmental exposure—accelerate this loss. When diversity falls, the skin becomes more prone to irritation, inflammation, and slower healing. In this sense, maintaining a healthy microbiome is not cosmetic; it is a meaningful part of supporting whole‑body health.
One of the most effective ways to nurture microbial diversity is surprisingly simple: connect with nature. Outdoor environments expose the skin to a rich array of harmless environmental microbes—what immunologists call “old friends.” These organisms help train the immune system, reinforce microbial balance, and counteract the narrowing effect of indoor, sanitised environments. Even a daily walk in a park or woodland can subtly enrich the skin’s microbial landscape.
Equally important is reducing unnecessary disruption. Gentle, pH‑balanced cleansers, less frequent full‑body washing, and regular moisturising help preserve the skin’s natural habitat. A biodiverse microbiome thrives when the barrier is intact and the environment is stable.
In an age of over‑sterilisation, rediscovering the value of microbial diversity—on our skin and in the natural world—offers a quiet but powerful way to support long‑term health.
Recommended read: Rebecca Seal's book: The Allergy Epidemic and What We Can Do About It. Published on April 23rd 2026 by Headline Home at £22. This covers the issue of skin microbe biome and how it impacts the immune system. As does the stomach which is vital to maintaining a healthy immune system. Avoid antibiotics and protect your skin and stomach. 😉👍
A healthy cat caregiver is a better cat giver!! Sorry if that sounds like lecturing.
-------------------
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.
Op-ed: Trump's elected Iran war has created a plethora of negative outcomes - listed. There will be more. Many more I suspect. And I can't think of any positives because the war was unnecessary. Yes, Trump has severely damaged Iran's military equipment but they can rebuild. They will rebuild and the damage by all accounts is less than boasted by Trump and his cronies.
"Iran still has thousands of ballistic missiles in its arsenal that it could use by retrieving launchers from underground storage areas, according to American officials familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments," said a recent intelligence report
Negatives (not an exhaustive list):
Thousands of innocent Iranians killed by US bombs. High casualties across Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and U.S. forces.
The possibility that the Iranian regime will become more dictatorial when the war finishes.
The Strait of Hormuz now potentially subject to a toll imposed by Iran which will strangle shipping going forward for an indefinite time.
Europe's stagnant economy - including the UK - will be further battered by inflation due to the Iran war due to higher oil prices, and higher interest rates.
NATO is ruptured thanks to the war as Trump believes that NATO countries should have stepped in and assisted the US. But the US did not keep NATO in the loop. Nor did Trump seek the approval of Congress. Many European leaders see the war as illegal.
Russia has received a much needed economic boost due to a sanctions break (Trump's decision) and elevated oil and gar prices. This will assist Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine where hundreds of thousands have been killed. Trump's decisions are often immoral.
The relationship between Israel and the US is frayed because many in the US believe that Israel dragged the US into this unnecessary war. This is Bibi's war. He loves to batter the Arabs as it keeps him in power! True.
Gulf nations have had their peace, quiet and stability rudely interrupted indeed destroyed to a certain extent because of Iran's attacks on them. They are losing tourists by the bucket full. And those who planned to emigrate to the Gulf will now think twice.
The US has spent $50 billion on the war. The US has a massive national debt that will, one day, cripple the country. Trump does not give a damn about the country's national debt because he likes to leverage debt in a business sense. The higher inflation due to the war will make servicing this debt harder. The U.S. national debt has surged past $38–39 trillion, rising by billions per day and pushing debt‑to‑GDP above 120%. Interest payments now exceed $1 trillion annually, outpacing many federal programs and eroding fiscal flexibility. As borrowing accelerates faster than economic growth, the government becomes more vulnerable to rising bond yields, investor anxiety, and policy missteps. The mounting debt strains budgets, fuels inflation pressures, weakens confidence in U.S. Treasuries, and risks crowding out future public investment—leaving the country more exposed to shocks and less able to shape its own economic destiny.
The majority of US citizens are against the Iran war started by choice by Trump. No need for it arguably. The country is polarised. The US is still at war with its own public!
Severe regional destruction including critical infrastructure and energy facilities which will affect energy prices for a decade going forward?
Risk of wider regional escalation drawing in multiple state and non-state actors.
Supply side disruptions - LPG and fertiliser for example.
A dent to Trump's support from his once highly supportive MAGA fans.
Trump's credibility severely damaged.
Trump's lack of ability to control Bibi Netanyahu who will not stop bombing Lebanon! More instability.
China is strengthened by the war perhaps indefinitely. Why? The country has done a deal with Iran to let their ships pass the Strait of Hormuz and there is damage to the US and the Gulf States but China marches on untouched.
Positives:
None that I can think of! Please comment.
-------------------------
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.
Before this elected war, due to Trump's recklessness and poor thinking, all was well in the Strait of Hormuz. No problems. 120 ships came and went unhindered for years until Trump blundered bigtime.
Now, no matter what happens with this unnecessary war, it seems likely that Iran will be charging shipping companies huge amounts of money in bitcoin to pass through the strait as a form of toll, depending on the origin and I suppose destination of the ship and whether it carries cargo or not.
The point is that there will be a Hormuz toll system in place for the indefinite future it seems to me and well after this crazy and sad war has ended.
This will have a very negative impact on world trade in the future. And it will create more friction between nations.
Iran has realised that they have a massive amount of leverage when in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and they are prepared to use it both to hurt Western trade and to bring in much need income.
----------------
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.
Trump has already committed a war crime in his threat to destroy Iran because a threat of this nature is itself a war crime. View this video to see that explained.
It is a really impressive video (not so much if you worship Trump). What Trump said is astonishing. Utterly reckless. Demented in fact. Irresponsible and so on leading to many people seriously thinking about replacing Trump through incapacity to discharge his duties as president. In other words he is as nutty as a Christmas cake.
The people who worship Trump and can't ever see him doing anything wrong are the ignorant and unenlightened. They really are. Can't blame them often for being ignorant and uneducated but if you see people praising Trump after these latest mad threats you'll have to agree with me.
--------------
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.
There’s something unsettling about watching a leader - Trump - make big, dramatic threats and then quietly back away from them (TACO Trump 😱). After a while, it stops feeling like strategy and starts feeling like theatre. You can almost hear the studio lights buzzing in the background. Trump spent many years being the presenter on the American version of The Apprentice.
“A whole civilization will die tonight,” the President said on Monday, adding with jaw-dropping glibness: “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” - this is Trump at his worst. Scaring the sh*t out of the entire world unless you know for sure he is pure bluster and full of crap.
Trump has already committed a war crime in this threat:
This is described as "existential theatre!"
Take the pattern we’ve seen again and again: a bold warning, a countdown, a promise of devastating consequences — and then, just as the deadline arrives, everything softens. The threat fades. The moment passes. And we’re left wondering what the point of the whole performance was.
It’s hard not to feel a bit embarrassed on behalf of the country when this happens. A threat only works if the person making it actually means it. When they don’t, it becomes noise. Worse, it becomes a habit.
The Showman’s Shadow
What strikes many people is how much this behaviour resembles the rhythm of a game show or a reality‑TV cliff-hanger. The dramatic pause. The “big reveal” that never quite arrives. The sense that the audience is supposed to gasp, even when nothing actually happens.
And maybe that’s the problem. When someone spends years building a public identity around spectacle, that identity doesn’t just disappear when they step into office. It follows them. It shapes how they talk, how they react, how they try to project strength.
But governing isn’t a show. The world doesn’t respond to cliff-hangers. It responds to consistency.
The Insecurity Behind the Bluster
There’s also something a bit sad (and mad, frankly) about it, if we’re honest. Because when a person keeps making threats they don’t carry out, it doesn’t come across as strength. It comes across as insecurity — the kind that needs to shout to feel heard, or threaten to feel powerful.
It’s the kind of behaviour you see when someone is terrified of looking weak, so they overcompensate. They puff themselves up. They talk big. They set impossible deadlines. And then, when reality pushes back, they quietly step away and hope no one notices.
But people do notice. And each time it happens, the gap between the performance and the person gets wider.
A Persona That Never Evolved
The truth is, some leaders never really leave their old roles behind. They carry the showman’s instincts into the presidency — the need for attention, the dramatic gestures, the constant sense of performing for an audience.
And that’s where the real damage happens. Because the world isn’t a studio set. Other countries aren’t contestants. And credibility isn’t something you can fake with a dramatic pause.
Many commentators argue that Donald Trump shows exactly this pattern — the game‑show‑host persona bleeding into the presidency, the big threats that evaporate, the performance that never quite becomes leadership.
Other commenters are genuinely concerned about Trump's sanity! Literally. And to think that he - and only he - can make the decision to use nuclear bombs. Is the world safe with Trump as president? Some even many doubt it.
The deeper psychological reading
When you strip away the politics and look only at the behavioural pattern, analysts often conclude that it reflects:
a constructed persona masking insecurity
a dependence on performance over substance
a fear of being exposed as ordinary or fallible
a need for dominance displays to maintain self‑worth
a mismatch between inner stability and outer theatrics
This is not a diagnosis — it’s a behavioural interpretation consistent with decades of research on public personas, leadership psychology, and compensatory self‑presentation.
A performative persona often emerges when the inner self feels insufficient
In psychology, this is sometimes called a compensatory identity.
It happens when:
the person fears being ordinary, weak, or ignored
so they build a larger‑than‑life persona to protect against that fear
This persona can look like:
exaggerated confidence
dramatic ultimatums
constant self‑promotion
theatrical displays of toughness
But underneath, the behaviour often reflects fragile self‑esteem, not stable confidence.
Below is a structured breakdown of the documented instances.
1. March 21–23 Deadline (Strait of Hormuz)
Initial threat: Iran must fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or the U.S. would “obliterate” Iranian power plants.
Extension: About 12 hours before the deadline, Trump announced “productive conversations” and postponed strikes for five days, effectively extending the deadline.
2. Late March Extensions (Multiple Shifts)
After the first extension, Trump shifted the March 23 deadline several times over the following weeks.
He alternated between threats, claims of progress, and new timelines — sometimes in the same statement.
3. March 26 → April 6 Deadline
Trump again warned Iran to “get serious” before it was “too late.”
Later that same day, he extended the deadline by 10 more days, to April 6 at 8 p.m. ET, saying negotiations were “going very well.”
-------------
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.
