Smoking Will Be Banned For Anyone Born After 2008

CHILDREN aged 17 or under will face a lifelong ban on purchasing cigarettes in a “landmark” bill which hopes to make a smoke-free generation.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed through Parliament and will make it illegal for anyone born after 2008 to purchase tobacco from a shop.

Additionally, ministers will have the authority to impose stricter regulations on tobacco, vapes, and other byproducts of nicotine.

Both the Commons and Lords have approved a final draft of the ruling, and it is set to become law once it gets royal assent.

The law is one of several changes aimed at addressing the negative health impacts of smoking, which is one of the leading avoidable causes of death, disability, and illness in the nation.

Expanding smoke-free regulations and outlawing vaping outside of schools and hospitals, as well as in vehicles transporting children, are other steps.

Vaping outside hospitals will still be allowed as a way to help those trying to quit.

Makes you chuckle, doesn’t it – they can’t prevent the small boats from crossing the Channel, but they can stop people from smoking.

Obviously, some people won’t be bothered by this, but doesn’t it seem a tad bizarre that our government decided to lower the voting age, but you’re now not allowed to smoke?

People stockpile your cigarettes because they’re going to be worth their weight in gold – it’s called the Black Market.

These are ridiculous laws created to control you because it’s all about control. Ultimately, you won’t be allowed to drive, own your own home, or buy anything from a shop because it will all be done online.

There will be no eating out, there will be curfews, and those who work at night will have to have permits to go out or travel to work.

There will be no socialising, and there will definitely be no Freedom of Speech, but there will still be predators on the streets, feasting off those who don’t follow the rules.

The least of our nation’s problems, in my opinion, is preventing people from smoking and vaping, and who’s going to police all of this? If people want to do something, they will find a way because all it’s going to do is make it more appealing for people, and where are the government going to get that lost tax from – yes, of course, the taxpayer!

Video Postings By ‘Sickfluencer’

A ‘sickfluencer’ who posts videos online to help people acquire disability benefits says she’s accused of “hacking the system” when she’s “just educating people.” Sara Middleton, 47, was first diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, a chronic pain disorder, at age 17.

Over the years, she has also been diagnosed with spinal problems induced by nerve compression, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, anxiety and inflammation of the chest known as Costochondritis.

Sara, a mum-of-one from Chesterfield, Derbyshire, started to gain a following on TikTok after posting a video ‘ranting’ about welfare reform last spring.

Since then, she has become a chronic illness ‘influencer’, including sharing informative videos for eligible people accessing Personal Independence Payments (PIP) from the government.

Sara said as a result, she has been accused of helping people “cheat, scam or hack the system” to claim undeserved benefits.

But she claims that it’s “not possible to scam the system” because you need to provide medical proof. Sara says she is simply educating people who are genuinely entitled to support on how to communicate their circumstances and needs – and that trolls “don’t understand the system”.

She has a video about the ‘two big mistakes people make that cause them to fail their PIP review’, which has over 229,300 views, and over 96,000 views on a video about what to do when you need to report a change of circumstances, to avoid losing your PIP support.

Sara, a motor finance administrator who also accesses £749 per month in PIP, said: “I never set out to do TikTok, but now I’ve found my tribe on social media. “Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of hate online, especially around benefits like PIP and the Motability scheme.

“People have this idea that you can go to a doctor, tell them you’re a bit sad to get diagnosed with depression, then get PIP and a free BMW. The biggest misconception is that you can help someone cheat the system; all I’m trying to do is educate.

“PIP is the hardest support to get, and I just try to explain to people how to communicate with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to get the benefits they are eligible for. I’m just helping people to stand up for themselves and what they need – their evidence still has to back it up.

“People forget that nobody is exempt from becoming ill – it could be them one day.”

Sara said she is constantly accused of helping people to cheat the system – thanks to a misleading narrative around accessing benefits. Since her first chronic illness diagnosis three decades ago, her pain and struggles have got far worse, and she now uses walking aids.

She said due to nerve damage, sometimes her legs can spontaneously give way – even while crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic – leading to additional anxiety. She said: “Some days I wake up and my husband asks, ‘Where are we on the damage meter today?’

“It is hard, but these are the cards that I was dealt, so I have to deal with it. It’s become quite natural to talk about it – I call myself a ‘veteran of chronic illness’.”

But she said since joining social media and becoming an influencer discussing chronic illness – dubbed a ‘sickfluencer’ – she has discovered the extent of the misunderstanding. She blames the media and politicians for circulating false narratives around people accessing disability benefits.

She said: “Disabled people are just trying to get through things day by day. Then you have politicians suggesting you can come and get a Motability car for tennis elbow, acne or constipation. And people believe it, then they come after us.”

Sara argues that all she does online is encourage people to stand up for themselves when dealing with chronic illness. She said she teaches them how to communicate clearly, in order to meet the criteria, in cases where it can be evidenced.

Sara said: “With PIP, you can’t give key phrases, or say ‘if you use this word, you’ll get this’ – because you need the diagnosis letters, consultant reports, assessment outcomes and test results. I teach people how to communicate their circumstances, how to paint the picture when the assessors ask for details of their situation. Unfortunately, the general consensus is I’m teaching people how to ‘win PIP’.”

She added: “I want to educate, advocate and empower. I want people to be confident and have a fair shot. But nothing I could tell someone would definitively get them a good reward with PIP – that comes down to their medical evidence.”

Well done to this lady because getting awarded PIP is like getting milk from a pigeon.

Some might argue that PIP should only be given to those who are unable to work because of medical issues, and that those who are already receiving benefits shouldn’t be eligible for any benefits at all.

Many persons with disabilities, such as paraplegics or those who have had limbs removed, are employed. Individuals such as this require PIP with assistance to go around; otherwise, they might become confined to their homes.

Some might say that most employers don’t provide cars for their workers to get to work, so why should PIP? Well, it’s easy to say if you’re not disabled. You try getting into work in the rush hour in a wheelchair, particularly a manual wheelchair.

Receiving PIP frequently enables some individuals to continue working, so please stop making such absurd remarks until you can see why those who are employed can claim PIP.

To claim PIP, you need a wealth of proof, whether it be a physical disability or a mental disability, and just because you can’t see a disability does not mean they don’t have one.

I also saw a ludicrous comment that if one gets PIP, they must be claiming other benefits as well. That is such a fraudulent comment because I receive PIP; however, I do not receive any other benefits.

Politicians accept handouts all the time, but no one says anything about that, do they? But giving money to somebody who needs it, and everybody goes nuts!

Single Mother And Two Children Face Eviction

A single mum fears she and her family could be made homeless because her landlord has told her they won’t transfer their home into her name following the death of her father. Saphire O’Connor, 34, was born at the house in Chatham, Kent, where she looks after her two young children, and is a full-time carer to her adult brother.

When her dad, Shaun O’Connor, became terminally ill at the end of last year, it was one of his last wishes to assign the rental agreement to his daughter. Saphire said he wanted to die in the knowledge that his family had a secure roof over their heads.

But housing association MHS Homes has written to her saying that “no succession rights exist”, she must vacate the three-bed terrace property. Saphire said: “My parents took over the tenancy in 1992. It’s the only home we’ve ever known. I have grown up here and gone to school here. My friends are here in this community, and my children have settled here.”

Ms O’Connor said they had been good tenants and could not understand why the Medway-based housing provider had turned down her request for a meeting. She said, “They have been to the house and know the situation we are in.”

Her daughter Malia-Sydney, aged six, has autism and is under an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Her one-year-old baby Leo has additional needs, and her brother Christopher, 35, has autism, ADHD and severe learning difficulties.

Saphire, who has lived in the house her entire life, said any changes to their lifestyle would be disruptive and could cause a long-term impact on their mental health and well-being. In correspondence to the family, MHS Homes said: “There is no duty as landlord to provide alternative accommodation.”

It advised Saphire to seek legal guidance and approach the homeless charity, Shelter and Citizens Advice. When approached for comment, Andy Pule, MHS executive director of customer experience, said: “We understand Miss O’Connor’s situation, and we’re sorry for the recent loss of her father.

“There are some circumstances where a tenancy can be passed on when a tenant dies. However, this case is currently with our legal representatives, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment further at this time.

“We remain committed to supporting Miss O’Connor and her family, and we continue to work with them, along with Medway Council, to provide appropriate advice and support.”

Sapphire’s cousin, Brydie Wallington, has been supporting her in her fight for a discretionary tenancy of the property. She has also written to the Housing Ombudsman on her behalf. Brydie said: “Any forced move would not only disrupt essential support networks, schooling, and medical care, but would also expose them to a heightened risk of victimisation and harm.

“In particular, it would have a massive impact on Malia’s schooling, as she has an Education, Health and Care Plan in place to attend a local school that is equipped to meet her specific needs; any relocation would risk interrupting this provision and her educational progress.

“Due to their conditions, members of the household are less able to recognise or respond to danger, making unfamiliar environments particularly unsafe. Relocation could severely impact their mental health, stability, and overall well-being, placing them at real risk.

“It is vital that their vulnerabilities are properly recognised and that any housing decisions prioritise their safety, continuity of care, and protection from potential targeting or exploitation.”

The housing association might not have a ‘duty’ to allow her to take over the tenancy, but given the thousands of pounds they’ll have to spend doing the property up once they boot them out, they may as well let them stay there. ‘What happened to morals over duty?’

This woman may not be on the waiting list for a place to live, but she’s also not exactly skipping the queue. If they refuse to let her stay there, she will be forced into private housing—something I wouldn’t even put my dog in!

This is absurd – why cause the family even more anxiety? And even if they are on benefits, that is something we taxpayers have to live with. I definitely have no problem paying towards keeping a roof over this family’s head. I would rather that than have to pay towards immigrants lapping it up in 4-star hotels any day of the week.

What possible sense does it make for her to be chucked out of this home to be transferred to another? Surely, the housing association could administer the paperwork and leave the lady and her children in situ?

Antisemitism Versus Jeremy Corbyn

I need to remain within clear boundaries here because I can’t say whether Jeremy Corbyn would make a better prime minister, since he never became one, and, of course, people view him differently. I believe he has good leadership skills.

He’s indeed a man who challenges things, and he’s not a ‘yes’ man.

He places a lot of emphasis on public services, particularly social care, the NHS, and public utility ownership. He also has a more economic model, such as higher taxes on wealth and expanded workers’ rights, and some people did like him because he would have governed in a way that prioritised social welfare, inequality reduction, and public ownership.

Sadly, some people said that his spending objectives were hazardous and unrealistic, but as long as we exercise caution, there are moments when we must take a small chance and spend in order to acquire.

Then there was the debate surrounding his antisemitism, which was a crucial area of contention for Jeremy Corbyn.

Was he antisemitic? He has never personally been found to be antisemitic, but multiple authoritative investigations and reports concluded that antisemitism arose within the Labour Party during his leadership, and that his leadership failed to address it sufficiently. Different sources interpret this very differently, which is why it has been challenged multiple times.

In 2020, Corbyn acknowledged that antisemitism in Labour was “neither exaggerated nor overstated” and voiced remorse for the harm induced. This was a shift from his earlier suggestion that the issue had been exaggerated for political reasons.

There was a Jewish Labour Movement report. It was a 53-page report submitted in 2019, listing nine instances in which Corbyn was alleged to have personally engaged in antisemitic behaviour or associated with individuals accused of antisemitism. Examples included: Writing a foreword to a book containing antisemitic conspiracy theories. Expressing support for a self‑described Holocaust denier, and attending a wreath‑laying ceremony linked to individuals involved in the 1972 Munich massacre.

Critics have frequently referenced these accusations, which are not legal conclusions.

Some Jewish Labour MPs and party officials said Corbyn ignored direct pleas to act on antisemitism complaints and failed to intervene when members faced abuse.

So, was Jeremy Corbyn antisemitic? There is no official finding that Corbyn himself is antisemitic, and he would make a more suitable prime minister by a country mile than any of the alternatives, but then the choice of who to follow is totally up to the individual. However, he is the kind of man who tells the truth, and that’s why he had to be discredited.

He has a strong sense of integrity and is a trustworthy, honest, and moral person. He is a very competent and well-respected political figure because of his dedication to justice and openness, as well as his careful decision-making process.

He would have supported the working-class people and undoubtedly would have had a wealth tax, which is why the powers that be – corporate entities, the BBC et cetera made sure at every occasion they had to smear this man. However, Mickey Mouse would have probably made a better prime minister than all of them put together!

Chernobyl Disaster Zone – Four Decades On

A frozen world, sealed in time. Earth, as it was known, changed on April 26, 1986, at 1.23 am, when the night split open.

Inside Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, a routine safety test spiralled into disaster.

What ensued was the worst nuclear catastrophe in history. Almost 50,000 inhabitants of nearby Pripyat were evacuated within hours, many told they would return in a few days. Most never did.

Today, four decades on, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) – a vast, restricted area spanning approximately 2,600sq km – remains one of the most haunting places on Earth.

Nature has returned. Tower blocks that are disintegrating are swallowed by forests. With schoolbooks still open, tables still arranged, and chalk on the blackboards, classrooms are precisely as they were when they were left.

Only the wind and the far-off crackling of Geiger counters break the complete quiet, and yet, despite the creepy silence, the zone is not completely empty.

The people who refuse to vacate the radioactive site, known as the ‘samosely’, are self-settlers who returned illegally to their homes following the disaster. 

Among the most polluted structures is the Pripyat hospital, where the first firefighters were treated. Amidst the turmoil, medical equipment and protective clothes were left behind.

Deep inside the power plant complex itself, corridors once bustling with engineers are now dark and heavily controlled, with peeling paint, exposed wiring and lingering radiation hotspots.

Preserved as stark memories of the moment everything went wrong, the control rooms, which were previously full of bright lights and anxious voices, are now hauntingly quiet.

They have refused to leave the land they had lived on for decades.

The majority are old. Many rely on small-scale farming and imported goods to survive without access to modern services.

As of recent calculations, fewer than 200 remain, their numbers decreasing with time.

About 80 per cent of the re-settlers are women, now aged in their 70s and 80s.

Authorities once attempted to remove them. Now, they are tolerated – ghosts living among ghosts.

In nearby villages, deserted hospitals and schools loom over the empty streets. They remain untouched since the chaos of the nuclear meltdown.

Inside the abandoned city of Pripyat, the Ferris wheel in the amusement park stands stationary, its yellow carriages deteriorating in silence, never having carried a single rider after it was due to open just days after the disaster.

Apartment blocks loom like hollow shells, their windows blown out or dimmed with dirt, while curtains still hang in places, gently moving with the drafts that move through broken glass.

In kindergartens, rows of tiny metal beds remain neatly arranged, and gas masks are spread across the floor – haunting relics of preparations that came too late.

Schoolrooms are littered with rotting textbooks, Soviet propaganda posters peeling from the walls, and exercise books still marked with children’s handwriting frozen in time.

The railway station in the neighbouring town of Yaniv is a mute testimony to the enormous exodus that took place in a matter of hours, with its lines overgrown and its platforms abandoned.

Villages such as Zalissya and Opachychi stand half-reclaimed by woodland, where houses collapse inward, and fruit trees still bloom each spring with no one left to harvest them.

As nature gradually reclaims the ground, roads that formerly connected villages are bent and fractured, and trees are pushing their way through the asphalt.

Street signs remain in place, pointing towards towns that no longer function, their names faded but still readable underneath layers of rust and moss.

Inside abandoned shops, shelves lay empty save for the occasional fragment of packaging, a reminder of lives interrupted mid-routine.

Personal belongings – shoes, toys, photographs – are spread across floors, often precisely where they were left in the rush to evacuate.

The swimming pool in Pripyat, once an epicentre of activity, remained in use for years after the tragedy for cleanup workers, but now sits empty, its tiles broken and its roof partly collapsed.

Soviet-era paintings that depict an idealised future that never materialised nevertheless adhere to the walls of certain structures.

Many buildings are severely unstable, with lifts stuck mid-shaft, stairwells blocked with debris, and whole floors fallen in some locations.

Chernobyl’s unfinished colossi – two cooling towers – are also observable from miles around.

The enormous concrete cylinders protrude from the dead ground, strewn with pieces of metal of variable shapes and sizes.

At the very top, four levels of scaffolding cling to the rim. The intricate structure has somehow managed to survive despite the years of harsh weather it has endured.

Yet, far from being totally deserted, life enters the Exclusion Zone on a daily basis.

Around 3,000 workers rotate in and out – engineers, scientists and technicians overseeing the slow dismantling of the ruined reactor and maintaining the vast steel confinement structure that now cages it.

The concrete sarcophagus that entombed Reactor No. 4 is surrounded by the New Safe Confinement (NSC), which houses the containment operations and nuclear waste management conducted by the Ukrainian government.

During the cleanup after the explosion, teams of men called liquidators tested and washed everything inside the Exclusion Zone.

Anything considered too contaminated to be washed – such as the entire Red Forest, so named because the pine trees absorbed so much radiation that they turned red, and all the houses in the town of Kopachi – was demolished and buried underground instead.

Nobody lives there permanently – except those who chose to return.

When Russian troops invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, they did so through the Exclusion Zone surrounding the ruins of Chernobyl. 

The Russian army occupied the immediate area surrounding the defunct plant for over five weeks, causing an estimated $54million in damage to the Exclusion Zone and the New Safe Confinement.

The Russian army occupied the immediate area surrounding the defunct plant for over five weeks, generating an estimated $54 million in damage to the Exclusion Zone and the New Safe Confinement.

The site of the disaster was a logical base for over 1,000 Russian troops, as the NSC houses electrical operations that connect to Kyiv’s main power grid, and aerial attacks from Ukraine would be unlikely. 

Regular troop and vehicle movements inside the CEZ disrupted the site’s nuclear radiation by agitating dirt and dust, which released more radioactive particles into the atmosphere.

In addition to looting and destroying much of the lab and computer equipment located inside the NSC, the Russian army also cut electrical power to the plant, making the cooling of the deteriorating nuclear material unreliable.

But perhaps the most disturbing legacy of Chernobyl is not the reactor, nor the ruins, but the animals left behind.

When residents fled in 1986, they were forced to abandon their pets. Many were subsequently culled to stop the spread of contamination.

But some survived, and their descendants still roam the zone today.

There are now hundreds of semi-feral dogs living among the ruins, clustered around the power plant, checkpoints and deserted towns.

Images of luminous eyes, contorted bodies, and radiation-warped creatures have become part of Chernobyl legend, along with stories of mutant canines.

The truth is more complicated and, in many respects, more disturbing.

According to studies, isolation, inbreeding, and environmental pressure have formed these canines’ genetic differences from populations beyond the zone.

Some show signs of evolutionary change – genes linked to DNA repair and survival in harsh conditions – but scientists are cautious. 

Contrary to common belief, there is no concrete proof of severe radiation-induced mutations.

Instead, what is occurring is slower and quieter – natural selection at work in one of the most contaminated environments on Earth.

Even the viral pictures of blue dogs seen in recent years were not the result of radiation, but probably caused by chemicals they had rolled in.

Still, the idea lingers as Chernobyl feels like the type of place where such things should exist.

The exclusion zone is now an unintentional test. Ecosystems have recovered since people left. However, radiation is still present in the water, the soil, and the landscape itself.

The area behind the power plant, called the ‘Red Forest’ is one of the most radioactive areas on Earth. 

Some estimates suggest part of the Exclusion Zone may stay unsafe for hundreds to thousands of years, but animals live, reproduce and die here nonetheless.

The dogs – descendants of abandoned pets – are possibly the most poignant symbol of that contradiction. Life continues in a place defined by disaster. 

Chernobyl is no longer just a disaster site. It is a warning, a wilderness, a graveyard – and strangely, a refuge.

A place where humans vanished, but life did not. 

It was said that in 2018, 34 dogs were adopted into the US and Canada. There is publicly no proof that the 34 Chernobyl dogs adopted into the US and Canada in 2018 suffered radiation-related illness or failed to thrive because there were no follow-up studies or news reports.

What we do know is that in 2018, there was an adoption program. It was called the Clean Futures Fund (CFF), and it ran a program to vaccinate, sterilise, and rehome a small number of puppies from the Cernobyl Exclusion Zone. These puppies were allowed to be adopted abroad because the puppies had lower radiation exposure than adult dogs. They underwent radiation screening, veterinary checks, and decontamination before travel, and only dogs that met stringent safety thresholds were cleared for export.

Nevertheless, no scientific or journalistic follow‑up has tracked the health of those specific 34 dogs after adoption. This is a genuine information gap — not something concealed, just something never studied or reported.

However, what we do know about Chernobyl dogs in general is that in recent scientific studies, there has been an insight into the health of dogs still living in the Exclusion Zone, and dogs in the zone reveal genetic differences from normal dog populations, likely due to long-term radiation exposure.

Researchers have discovered distinct populations of dogs living near the reactor vs. in Chernobyl City, with limited interbreeding.

Studies suggest chronic radiation exposure may increase risks of cancer, immune system changes, and decreased lifespan, though research is ongoing. Despite this, numerous dogs in the zone are surviving and even thriving behaviourally, forming stable populations and adapting to extreme conditions.

These findings apply to dogs still living in the zone, not the exported puppies, who had far lower exposure.

Can You Visit Chernobyl Today?

All credible, up‑to‑date sources agree that Chernobyl is presently closed to tourists due to the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, and has been since early 2025. Authorised tourism will only resume once the security situation stabilises.

Tours have been suspended since early 2025 because of military activity in the region.

According to the most recent information, only state and military delegations are permitted entry to the Exclusion Zone, which is still prohibited to ordinary tourists.

Due to the conflict and potential building damage from the occupation, travel guides affirm that Chernobyl is off-limits.

When tours were operating, the radiation exposure on approved routes was low — approximately equivalent to a short flight (5–7 μSv/day).

If tourism continues in the future, expect stringent supervision and compulsory guided tours, passport control and restricted entry zones. Protective clothing (long sleeves, long trousers, closed shoes), and avoiding dangerous structures — numerous buildings are collapsing and are hazardous.

Will Chernobyl reopen to tourists? Well, tour operators are optimistic, but there is no timeline, and safety inspections of the zone and infrastructure will have to be satisfied first.

Dover Gets 6,000 Channel Crossings This Year

More than 600 small boat migrants reached the UK yesterday, pushing this year’s running total past the 6,000 mark.

On Saturday, Border Force ships picked up nine boatloads of migrants in the middle of the Channel and brought them onshore at the Port of Dover.

The Home Office confirmed there were 602 arrivals – the second-highest daily total so far this year, just below the 605 who completed the journey from northern France on February 25.

The latest arrivals brought the total so far this year to 6,077.

It also means that since Labour came to power, 70,701 migrants have crossed the Channel to reach Britain.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: ‘This is yet another day of shame for this weak Prime Minister and Home Secretary.

‘They have no control whatsoever over our borders.

‘Illegal Channel crossings are up by 45 per cent since the general election.

‘Labour’s claims to smash the gangs lie in tatters.’

He added: ‘We need to urgently leave the ECHR, which will enable us to deport these illegal immigrants within a week of arrival. Then the crossings will soon stop.

‘That is the Conservative plan, but Shabana Mahmood and Keir Starmer are too weak to do it.’

It comes after Ms Mahmood was forced to agree to a temporary deal with the French government to continue beach patrols funded by the UK taxpayer.

A previous multi-year deal with Emmanuel Macron’s government, signed in 2023, expired at the end of last month.

The £478 million package was also expected to pay for a new detention centre in France, which has still not opened.

In the new negotiations, Labour has been demanding performance-related payments, which will see funding payments staggered according to the number of migrants who are prevented from leaving the French beaches, but the French have refused to accept Ms Mahmood’s demands.

The interim deal will run for two months – costing the British taxpayer £16.2 million – as attempts are made to thrash out a longer-term agreement.

Last month, Ms Mahmood launched a separate scheme offering failed asylum seekers’ families up to £40,000 to voluntarily leave Britain, but she refused to reveal how many had taken up the offer.

Most failed asylum seeker families who are offered the cash are living in migrant hotels at an average cost of £158,000 a year per family.

Under Ms Mahmood’s scheme, they will receive £10,000 per head up to a maximum of £40,000, plus air tickets home.

This would all go away if our government rescinded the right to claim asylum in the UK and replaced it with a limited number system based on resources, where they would have to apply from abroad, not once they got here, and anyone who arrives from France, arrest them, detain them and then deport them back to their home country immediately. No ifs and no buts!

Unfortunately, the channel situation is quite complicated because you can’t return these people to the embarkation point from which they came. Unlike at an airport.

In international aviation and maritime practice, carriers are responsible for returning objectionable passengers to the point where they boarded when they arrive at a port of entry and are denied admission.

  • People who arrive through an official port,
  • Are presented for inspection,
  • And are refused entry by border authorities.

Small‑boat arrivals in the Channel do not fall under this category, because they are not transported by a carrier and do not arrive through a port.

Sea crossings in small boats are treated as search‑and‑rescue, not as port arrivals

Under maritime law:

  • When a vessel is in distress, the priority is rescue, not immigration enforcement.
  • The UK is obliged to bring people to the nearest safe port capable of providing assistance.

In the Dover Strait, that is almost always the UK, not France, because:

  • UK vessels are usually the ones conducting the rescue,
  • The UK coast is often closer at the moment of interception,
  • The UK has operational responsibility for many rescue zones.

This is why the “return to France” rule cannot simply be applied.

Six Adults And 50 Infants Were Found ‘Illegally Dumped’ In Trinidad And Tobago

The remains of at least 50 infants and six adults were found on Saturday after they had seemingly been dumped at a cemetery in Trinidad and Tobago.

A preliminary investigation revealed it ‘may be a case involving the unlawful disposal of unclaimed corpses,’ the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service said in a statement.

The gruesome find was made at Cumuto Cemetery, approximately 25 miles from the capital, Port of Spain, in Trinidad.

Police said the six adult remains included four male and two female corpses, with all but one of the men found with identification tags.

There were indications that two of the bodies—one male and one female—had undergone postmortems.

They did not immediately say if any of the bodies had been identified.

‘The TTPS stresses that this is an active and developing investigation, and further forensic analysis is underway to determine the origin of the remains and any associated breaches of law or procedure,’ the statement said.

Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro called the discovery ‘deeply troubling,’ saying his agency was handling the case ‘with urgency, sensitivity and unwavering commitment to uncovering the truth.’

‘Every cadaver must be handled with dignity and lawful care,’ he added, saying that ‘any individual or institution found to have violated that duty will be held fully accountable.’

Trinidad and Tobago, an English-speaking archipelago nation located about 10 six miles off the Venezuelan coast, has been plagued in recent years with increasing violent crime, recording 623 murders in 2024 among the inhabitants of 1.5 million.

A US State Department report said the murder rate of 37 per 100,000 people made Trinidad and Tobago the sixth most dangerous nation in the world in 2023.

The murder rate dropped 42 per cent the following year, but Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar announced a state of emergency in March due to another peak in violent criminality.

Trinidad and Tobago is an extremely dangerous place, and what has transpired here is so sad – let’s hope the people responsible are brought to justice.

‘I Was Kicked Out Of A Bar Because Of My Wheelchair’

An 18‑year‑old woman, Maddie Haining, says she was kicked out of a Manchester nightclub because she uses a wheelchair. She describes the incident as embarrassing, infuriating, and discriminatory.

She had already been inside the venue for a few minutes when staff told her she had to leave because she was a “safety risk”—first without explanation, then later claiming she was a “fire risk.”

Security helped Maddie into the club, although at first, they insisted there was nothing wrong.

After her friend went to buy a drink, security returned and apologetically said they had been told to remove her.

The manager, according to Maddie, was “really, really rude” and refused to explain the decision.

Maddie showed staff the Equality Act 2010 on her phone, which states that wheelchair users cannot be excluded based on evacuation concerns—venues must have inclusive evacuation plans.

She says the manager dismissed this and reiterated the same line without engaging.

Maddie eventually left but asked for staff details so she could file a complaint.

According to the club, an internal inquiry is underway.

Following Maddie’s allegation, Manchester City Council is also investigating the event.

Under the Equality Act 2010, venues must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. That includes:

Ensuring access

Providing ramps or support where practical

Having evacuation plans that include wheelchair users

Removing someone because they use a wheelchair can be considered disability discrimination.

This case highlights:

  • How often must disabled people advocate for their rights
  • How poorly some venues understand their legal obligations
  • The emotional toll of being singled out in public spaces
  • The gap between written equality law and real‑world practice

Maddie’s frustration is evident: she knew her rights, she showed the law, and she was still ignored. The embarrassment of being escorted out—after already being allowed in—adds to the sense of unfairness.

This isn’t just about one night out. It’s about disabled people being treated as pests to remove rather than customers to accommodate.

I’m sure that many people have their views on this, but before you do, think about how anybody can go from having excellent health to having a serious disability, and this is discrimination at its finest, and the council should take away their license until they address this issue. I’m glad that she called them out. It’s 2026, not 1826, and they should be inclusive and know better.

I myself am a wheelchair user, and clubs should be wheelchair friendly. In fact, everywhere should be wheelchair friendly and accessible, and if they are not, they should be. Not that I would be seen in a club at my age, but I do like comedy nights, but usually they are not accessible.

The UK is a joke when it comes to accessibility, even down to WC admission. Cafe tables are poorly designed, and even most disabled toilets are too small for a wheelchair, and are badly designed. These new homes they are building are not designed with wheelchairs in mind, because they are building rabbit hutches. Suddenly, humans have become an experiment.

According to the legislation, all establishments must be able to accommodate wheelchair users; if they are unable to do so, they must close until they can.

This was clearly a gay bar, which is supposed to be inclusive, but evidently, this bar isn’t inclusive because if it had been, she would have been allowed to stay.

If you live in Rome, do as the Romans do!

The argument today is that if you choose to live in a foreign country, you must accept that country’s laws and cultural customs.

In other words, ‘If you live in Rome, do as the Romans do.’

Many immigrants have come over from other countries over the years, and they have integrated and even speak English, both outside the home and inside the home.

If a foreigner moves to another country, they have a duty to adapt to that country, and they must accept their laws, respect their customs, and learn their language to be able to communicate with people, businesses and government officials. Just seems like common sense to me – by the way, does anyone remember common sense? Yes, we had it years ago, but I’ve seen very little of it lately.

It’s a bit like moving into someone’s home – you would have to respect their rules, and if you didn’t, you were free to leave.

I’m not saying they can’t bring some of their customs with them – that would be foolish to think that they wouldn’t, but they also have to remember that this is the UK, and they need to adapt. What they do inside their own homes is up to them, but outside, they need to embody the British way of life, but these boat people don’t have any respect for our country or the British people who live here.

The problem is that our government permits these individuals to continue as they see fit.

If they had migrated to say Saudi Arabia and they caused trouble, they would have been deported or ended up in prison and given lashes – perhaps they should do that here in the UK.

It’s called tolerance and respect, and how the dice would fall if I were to wear a bikini, say in Afghanistan – many rocks would be thrown at me, I suspect, and in Egypt, even on holiday, you would be stoned for even showing some cleavage.

My great-grandmother was from Romania. They came for a better life, and they did assimilate, but sadly, she could never grasp the English language, but she made herself understood, and she even changed her name to a more anglicised one. She had six children, and she made sure that all of them spoke the English language fluently.

The message is loud and clear – either fall in line or get booted. Could someone explain this to Starmer, please?

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started