Britain has a rare opportunity to lure American talent
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
25 minutes ago
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you
Metro
25 minutes ago
- Metro
Trump loved Epstein conspiracy theories - now he's at the heart of one
For well over a decade, Donald Trump has thrived on conspiracy. He questioned Barack Obama's birthplace and citizenship, claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him without a shred of evidence, and has endorsed and promoted far-right figures who gleefully stoked the lie that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza restaurant. These weren't fringe ideas muttered in back rooms or basements. They were central to Trump's political theatre – designed to paint his opponents not just as wrong, but satanically evil. So when the President recently told reporters he didn't understand why his supporters are interested in late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, dismissing the entire saga as 'a very boring story', the response from the conspiratorial base was, predictably, swift and furious. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video From InfoWars and Telegram channels to MAGA influencers and mainstream news, the reaction boiled down to one thing: how dare he? Today, Trump ramped up his criticism, saying that the discussions around the former banker were a 'scam', labelling it a 'bulls**t Jeffrey Epstein hoax' and urging his supporters not to be 'hoodwinked.' Well, tough luck – conspiracies can't be controlled. Not even by Trump. Let's remember, Epstein's story isn't boring – it's horrifying. A convicted child sex trafficker with friends in high places. A mysterious prison death. A long list of alleged enablers and abusers still unnamed, still unaccountable. Rumours (encouraged by Trump and his allies) of a blackmail 'client list' held by Epstein. People are obsessed because they should be. Because justice, clearly, hasn't been served. The President has made a rod for his own back. He fuelled the fire for years, and not just on this. He platformed figures who are prominent in the QAnon conspiracy movement (which believes, among other things, that President Trump is battling satanic elite paedophiles), posted cryptic messages about 'the storm' (a QAnon dog whistle), and appointed people like Mike Flynn who actively amplified such theories. Trump's years of conspiracy indulgence were based on set rules: suspicion by association, trust no institution, and believe only him. But now, scrutiny has edged closer to Trump himself – with people on the left and right revisiting his long-standing friendship with Epstein, sharing those awkward photos and the quote where he called Epstein a 'terrific guy' who liked women 'on the younger side' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Suddenly, the President is no longer interested. You can't unleash a monster and then act surprised when it turns on you. Trump made himself the hero of the anti-elite, anti-paedophile crusade. But when people apply that same lens to his own past, he retreats. And not with his usual bluster, either. Lately, Trump's tone has changed. Usually, he has his supporters eating out of his hand. Now, he's reduced to begging them not to be 'taken in' by a 'hoax' he endorsed. But this isn't a rebrand. It's fear. Trump's scared. Because his supporters are asking questions he can't answer with a soundbite or a slogan. And the timing couldn't be worse for him. Public frustration over Epstein hasn't faded – it's deepened. It's not just that Epstein was a monster, although he was. It's that the system seemed to protect him. He maintained his network of powerful friends even after conviction. He secured sweetheart deals. And he died before a trial could truly begin and victims could get even a whiff of justice. The result, instead of accountability, is a vacuum, into which QAnon and other conspiracy movements poured. The thirst is twisted into the kind of pure fantasy that defined 'pizzagate' – a satanic cabal of baby-eaters apparently led by Hillary Clinton in secret bunkers under a pizza shop – and Trump as the saviour. Total fiction, rooted in real fury. But the emotional truth remains: people feel that the powerful get away with everything. Trump capitalised on that anger. Now, he's the one looking over his shoulder. The nature of their friendship, the timeline, and when exactly Trump stopped calling the paedophile financier a 'terrific guy' are all under scrutiny. The same scrutiny that was, in Trump's own way, the fair questions that he demanded be asked of the Democratic elite. Now, with Trump in power once again, Republican lawmakers have voted to block a Democratic effort to force the release of the Epstein files, which amounts to a mythological cache of apparently undisclosed information about the convicted sex offender at the centre of American politics for over three decades. The Epstein files may be buried, but the case is still open – if not legally, then morally. Survivors are still waiting. Names are still redacted. And trust in institutions is still on life support. Trump doesn't now get to call this 'boring'. More Trending He wanted to be the one to expose the rot. He told his base he was the only one who would clean it up. Now, faced with their anger, he shrugs and calls it dull. He isn't bored. He's terrified. And he should be. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Ragtag Zohran Mamdani protest likened to Netflix comedy sketch MORE: John Torode doesn't remember using racist language – that's a problem MORE: The Great British Sewing Bee is back – but I miss Kiell Smith-Bynoe
Evening Standard
25 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Embassies should see cars clamped for congestion charge debts
The Liberal Democrat also said Mr Trump 'would certainly not want a reputation of not paying fines' and said: 'When he comes for the state visit, can we ensure that this is part of the agenda so that there's no congestion in the city of London from the American delegation and they pay us what they owe?'
