Polish Air Forces intercepted Russian SU-24 aircraft, minister says
He added that the order to intercept the aircraft was issued by the joint operational command for NATO allied forces in Europe and the Polish jets located the aircraft, intercepted it and effectively deterred it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Italy to add 15,000 prison places to ease overcrowding
ROME, July 23 (Reuters) - Italy's government has pledged to expand prison capacity by up 15,000 places and facilitate the transfer of inmates with addiction problems to treatment centres to tackle a long-standing overcrowding crisis. The plight of prisoners has attracted more attention in Italy following a record number of suicides last year and complaints about soaring summer temperatures in detention facilities that are not air-conditioned. As of July 15, the country had 62,986 inmates, and an effective capacity in prisons of 47,289, justice ministry data showed. This gives Italy an occupancy rate of around 133%, one of the worst in Europe. According to the World Prison Brief database, only Cyprus and France fare worse. Last year the Italian parliament approved a law to improve jail conditions, but it had little practical effect. "We believe that a just state should adjust the capacity of prisons to the number of people that need to serve their sentences," Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said in a statement late on Tuesday. Her government presented a 758-million-euro ($890 million) plan to expand prison capacity by almost 10,000 by 2027, and a separate initiative for which it gave no budget to create an additional 5,000 places within five years. It also adopted a draft law - which will need parliamentary approval - to allow a sizeable portion of inmates with alcohol or drug addictions to leave prison and serve their sentences in rehab centres. "These are people who need treatment rather than criminals who need punishment," Justice Minister Carlo Nordio said, noting that inmates with addiction issues make up almost a third of the prison population. Nordio also referred to last week's announcement that up to around 10,000 inmates nearing the end of their sentencing could be eligible for house arrest or probation. His ministry has set up a taskforce to speed up the assessment of these cases. The early release of prisoners is set to be gradual, however, partly due to the political sensitivity of the move for a right-wing government such as Meloni's, known for its tough approach on law and order. ($1 = 0.8513 euros)
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Want to import toxic chemicals into Britain with scant scrutiny? Labour says: go right ahead
It's what the extreme right of the Tory party wanted from Brexit: to tear down crucial public protections, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous forms of capital. The Conservatives lost office before they were able to do their worst. But never mind, because Labour has now picked up the baton. A month ago, so quietly that most of us missed it, the government published a consultation on deregulating chemicals. While most consultations last for 12 weeks, this one runs for eight, half of which cover the holiday period – it closes on 18 August. The intention is set out at the beginning: to reduce 'costs to business'. This, as repeated statements by Keir Starmer make clear, means tearing up the rules. If, the consultation proposes, a chemical has been approved by a 'trusted foreign jurisdiction', it should be approved for use in the UK. No list is given of what these trusted jurisdictions are. It will be up to ministers to decide: they can add such countries through statutory instruments, which means without full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph the document provides what sounds like an assurance: these jurisdictions should have standards 'similar to and at least as high as those in Great Britain'. Three paragraphs later, the assurance is whisked away: the government would be able 'to use any evaluation available to it, which it considers reliable, from any foreign jurisdiction'. In this and other respects, the consultation document is opaque, contradictory, lacking clear safeguards and frankly chilling. Lobbyists will point out that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the US, or Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add that country as a trusted jurisdiction. If the government agrees, 'domestic evaluation' would be 'removed', meaning that no UK investigation of the product's health and environmental impacts will be required. In the US, to give one example, a wide range of dangerous chemical products are approved for uses that are banned here and in many other countries. The government has fired the gun on a race to the bottom. To make matters worse, once a country has been added to the list of trusted jurisdictions, all the biocidal products it authorises for use could, the consultation says, be 'automatically approved' for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, look like a realisation of the fantasy entertained by the ultra-rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2016: 'We could say, if it's good enough in India, it's good enough for here … We could take it a very long way.' There is in fact a means of reducing costs while maintaining high standards: simply mirror EU rules. Though far from perfect, they set the world's highest standards for chemical regulation. Mirroring them as they evolve would avoid the pointless institutional replication and total regulatory meltdown our chemicals system has suffered since we left the EU. But we can't have that, as it would mean backtracking on Brexit, which would be BETRAYAL. Adopting the weaker standards of other states at the behest of foreign corporations, by contrast, is the height of patriotism. The divergence from European standards is likely to mean breaking the terms of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement, as well as landing Northern Ireland in an even greater quandary, as it remains in both the EU single market and the UK internal market. In many cases, deregulation delivers bureaucratic chaos. The consultation also suggests the removal of all expiry dates for the approval of active chemical substances. The default position would be that, as long as a foreign jurisdiction has approved a product, allowing it to be used in the UK, it stays on the books indefinitely. Those arguing that new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved list would have a mountain to climb. Worse still, the consultation proposes removing any obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to maintain a publicly available database of the harmful properties of chemical substances on the UK market. No wonder they kept it quiet. Yes, these proposals might reduce costs for business. But the inevitable result is to transfer them to society. Already, we face a massive contamination crisis as a result of regulatory failure in this country, as compounds such as Pfas ('forever chemicals'), microplastics and biocides spread into our lives. If the decontamination of land and water is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits made by industry as a result of lax rules. In reality, we will carry these costs in our bodies and our ecosystems, indefinitely. The true price is incalculable. Many have paid with their lives, health, education or livelihoods for previous 'bonfires of red tape': through the Grenfell Tower disaster, filthy rivers, collapsing classrooms, consumer rip-offs and the 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be shifted off corporate and current government balance sheets, that is deemed a win for business and win for the Treasury. Earlier this month, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told financiers in her Mansion House speech that regulation 'acts as a boot on the neck of businesses'. In reality, business acts as a boot on the neck of democracy, a boot the government slathers with kisses. Before the general election last year, Reeves told an assembly of corporate CEOs: 'I hope when you read our manifesto, or see our priorities, that you see your fingerprints all over them.' The catastrophic planning reforms the government is now forcing through parliament were hatched, she told them, at a 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast' with corporate lobbyists. This was just one instance of a massive pre-election grovelling offensive, involving hundreds of meetings behind closed doors with corporations, which shaped Labour's plans and explains so much of what has gone wrong since. The point and purpose of the Labour party was to resist economic warfare by the rich against the rest. Starmer and Reeves have turned their party into the opposite of what it once was. Capital demands three things at once: that the government strip away the rules defending the public interest from ruthless profit-making; that the government regulate itself with insanely restrictive pledges, such as Reeves's fiscal rules; and that the public is regulated with ever more draconian laws, such as those restricting protest. It gets what it asks for. Everything must give way to capital, but capital must give way to nothing. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Protests in Kyiv as Ukraine clamps down on anti-corruption bodies
Ukraine is no longer a genuine democracy, a prominent critic of President Zelensky has alleged, as protesters rallied in Kyiv against a government crackdown on two major anti-corruption organisations that could derail the country's bid to join the European Union. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian parliament approved a bill that brought the national anti-corruption bureau, known as Nabu, and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office, Sapo, under the direct control of the country's prosecutor general, who answers to the president. Zelensky signed the legislation into force just hours later. He said it was necessary to purge the organisations of 'Russian influence,' but gave no other details. Both organisations were founded with western assistance following the 2014 Maidan revolution in Kyiv that toppled Viktor Yanukovych, the country's notoriously corrupt pro-Moscow leader. They were tasked with acting as independent groups that would root out and prosecute corruption without political interference. Last month, Nabu named Oleksii Chernyshov, who was at the time a Ukrainian deputy prime minister, as a suspect in a 'large-scale' corruption scheme led by a property developer from Kyiv. Chernyshov, who is said to be a close friend of Zelensky's, was the highest-placed Ukrainian official in history to be charged with corruption. He denied the charges, but lost his post in government this month when Zelensky appointed a new cabinet. At a rally near the presidential office in Kyiv on Tuesday evening, several thousand protesters, who included soldiers, condemned the move against the anti-corruption groups as a sign of growing authoritarianism and a betrayal of the ideas that powered the Maidan revolution. 'Ukraine is not Russia!' some chanted, while others held up signs saying 'Corruption = Death.' Zelensky's government has also recently proposed legislation that would block investigating corruption in the defence sector. The demonstration was the first significant show of public dissent against Zelensky since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv who has frequently clashed with Zelensky, was among the protesters. 'Sapo and Nabu must remain independent institutions,' he said. Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's former foreign minister, called the measures 'a bad day' for Ukraine. Marta Kos, the EU's top official for enlargement, warned that the move to clamp down on the agencies was 'a serious step back' for Kyiv's membership bid. She also said that their ability to operate without interference from the government was 'essential for Ukraine's EU path.' The offices of the two agencies were raided by Ukraine's security services on Monday over the claims that they had been infiltrated by Moscow. Opposition figures said the searches were an act of intimidation. Zelensky's move came after Vitaliy Shabunin, a well-known anti-corruption activist, was charged with fraud and evading military service in a case that was widely condemned as politically motivated. He faces up to ten years in prison, if found guilty. He is currently serving with the Ukrainian military. His house in Kyiv was raided by masked Ukrainian investigators while his wife and two small children were at home and he was stationed at a military base. 'After these events, I feel like Ukraine is no longer a full-fledged democracy. It feels more like a hybrid regime, still democratic, but with elements of authoritarianism and kleptocracy,' Shabunin, 40, told The Times in an interview from a location around 20 miles from the frontline. The co-founder of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, an independent group, Shabunin said the charges against him were absurd because he had volunteered for service on the first day of the war and was then later seconded to work on anti-corruption efforts, an order he could not legally refuse. 'This is pure political persecution,' he said. Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation has denied that the case is linked to Shabunin's anti-corruption activities. The raid on his home came almost five years to the day since his house was set on fire in apparent retaliation for his work. No one has been arrested over the attack. Shabunin also warned that Zelensky had crossed a 'red line' by moving against anti-corruption organisations. 'Ukrainians have always had a very, very strong demand for justice. And Ukrainians, like no one else, sense when the president does not give a damn about justice, and when he personally attacks it.' He suggested that Zelensky had become confident that he now had a free hand in Ukraine because Kyiv's western allies were now less focused on strengthening the country's democracy. 'Zelensky is showing his true face because the West, to put it mildly, is turning a blind eye. This is the real Zelensky, not the person we saw when the United States and the European Union demanded reforms and a fight against corruption,' he said. He also warned that Zelensky's determination to rein in independent anti-corruption groups could lead to violent protests. 'We will not be dancing on Maidan this time,' he said. 'Half of the country has combat experience. This is a scenario that [President] Putin is likely dreaming about. God forbid it should come to this. This is why it is in the interests of the West to stop Zelensky now, before such a confrontation.' He said, however, that western countries should continue to arm Kyiv. 'I don't think Zelensky will forgive me for speaking out so loudly. [But] whatever happens to me or whatever happens in the country, we want the West to continue to give weapons to Ukrainians and Ukraine. We need to survive. We know how to deal with our corrupt authoritarian elites. But without weapons we will die.' Zelensky's first term was due to end in May 2024, but Ukraine has banned elections during wartime, a policy that has wide support across the country. Although his popularity has slipped since the early days of the 2022 invasion by Russia, the Ukrainian president is still the country's second most trusted figure after Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian armed forces who is now Kyiv's ambassador in London, according to polls. It is unclear, however, how the unfolding row will impact Zelensky's ratings. One European diplomat speaking on the condition of anonymity described the measures against the anti-corruption groups as 'unfortunate,' but insisted there was still hope for Ukrainian democracy. 'Is it a setback? Yes. Is this a point of no-return? No,' the official said, according to the AFP news agency. However, the confrontation has opened up an unprecedented rift between the Ukrainian leader and civil society. The Kyiv Independent, Ukraine's main English-language website, accused Zelensky of betraying the country's democracy. 'Zelensky is making a choice to undermine Ukrainian democratic institutions in pursuit of expanding his personal power,' it wrote in an editorial. 'The same man who represents Ukraine's fight against Russia can't represent the destruction of Ukraine's democracy.' Back in Kyiv, protesters said that they were determined to keep battling to ensure Ukraine did not slide back into its authoritarian past. 'They are legalising corruption, and I have to fight against this' said Artyom, an 18-year-old protester. 'Our democratic institutions and democracy itself is collapsing,' said Kateryna, another protester.
