Swedish security chief resigns over ‘sensitive' photos on Grindr
Tobias Thyberg, a former ambassador to Ukraine and Afghanistan, stepped down after being asked about a 'sensitive image' by the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
He said in an interview: 'These are old pictures from an account I previously had on the dating site Grindr. I should have informed [the government] about this but I didn't. I have therefore said I do not intend to take up the position as national security adviser.'
The images are seen as problematic because they could make him vulnerable to blackmail.
Thyberg's departure comes after his predecessor in the recently created
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Labour playing with fire when it comes to lighter regulation for bankers?
The chair and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon, has told Sky News that London's status as one of the world's pre-eminent financial centres is ' fragile ', because of the continuing effects of Brexit, increased competition from other European centres, and the tax treatment of the US investment bank's most highly paid staff. Although Solomon cuts a rather remote figure with concerns far removed from the average British family, the fact is that financial services and the City are such a significant part of the economy that his remarks carry some serious implications for the economy, and thus the living standards of all. So he's worth listening to. What is at issue? Solomon points out that his bank, one of the largest in the world, has more people employed in continental Europe and proportionally fewer in London than was the case before Brexit. As a result, the UK doesn't enjoy the spending these 'absent' workers would otherwise inject into the local economy. Even in its current 'fragile' state, the financial services sector contributes about £44bn to the Exchequer, not far off the entire defence budget, and it could be even more, given the right conditions. The temptation for ministers is to change rules on tax and regulatory rulebooks, to boost banking profits and thus tax revenues, social spending and investment. We may term this 'Rachel's Dream'. What's wrong with London? Solomon is fairly clear that Brexit put up too many barriers with the EU in the financial sector, so relocation of certain functions and staff became inevitable. Tax and 'incentives' are also significant factors in the leakage of people and money abroad to rival centres. The abolition of ' non-dom ' status under the Conservatives, with additional tax liabilities added by Labour, Solomon says, has also depopulated the UK tax base. 'Incentives matter. If you create tax policy or incentives that push people away, you harm your economy … in Goldman Sachs today, if you're in Europe, you can live in London, you can live in Paris, you can live in Germany, in Frankfurt or Munich, you can live in Italy, you can live in Switzerland.' The government has already softened the former non-doms' tax obligations; paying inheritance tax is a particular concern for the super-rich. Thus far, the Labour left hasn't objected much. What else does this major investor want? Lighter regulation, as also suggested by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in her Mansion House speech last week. In particular, he wants the rules introduced in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, which keep 'high street' retail banking and 'casino' investment banking separate, to be reformed: 'It's a place where the UK is an outlier, and by being an outlier, it prevents capital formation and growth. What's the justification for being an outlier? Why is this so difficult to change? It's hard to make a substantive policy argument that this is like a great policy for the UK. So why is it so hard to change?' Well, why is it so hard to change? It's precisely because the UK has such an outsized financial sector compared to the size of its GDP that leaves the government and British taxpayers badly exposed if banks overextend themselves and have to be rescued with public funds – as happened before with Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS et al. Put simply, given the national debt, another banking crash could collapse the British public finances. The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, is alive to the dangers. He said only this week that such 'ring fencing' rules needed to be kept in place: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households.' Who will win? The Bank is operationally independent, and has to be to maintain confidence, so no chancellor would be reckless enough to undermine its status (as happened, in a different context, with the infamous Truss mini-Budget of 2022). However, the chancellor in the final analysis sets the Bank's remit, with parliamentary authority, and can prevail on a governor to contemplate change. Bailey hasn't ruled out reform, but banking supervision is a delicate and complex task, and there is much devilment in the detail. There will probably be some compromise and consequent quiet deregulation because the government is so desperate to boost growth, even if it means the system taking on more risk. No one will notice such boring developments – unless/until they go wrong. If they do, and if the Starmer government is still in charge, then the Labour Party would collapse along with the banks. How much of a gamble are Starmer and Reeves ready to take on the likes of Goldman Sachs getting it right? As the old saying goes, the most dangerous words in finance are 'this time, it's different'.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
WTO reform prospects clouded by investment deal block, sources say
GENEVA, July 23 (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation suffered a setback at its General Council meeting in Geneva on Wednesday after a small group of countries again blocked an initiative designed to boost foreign investment, two sources told Reuters. The Investment Facilitation for Development, which aims to reduce bureaucratic hurdles to encourage foreign direct investment, particularly in developing and least-developed countries, was blocked by India, South Africa and Turkey, they said, asking to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the matter. The WTO requires full consensus from all 166 members for a measure to be included in its formal rulebook. The measure has been formally backed by 127 members. Trade sources described the latest block as a "disturbing" signal, as WTO members weigh sweeping reforms to revitalise the global trade body, which has been challenged by a wave of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Proponents of reforms are pushing for changes to the consensus-based decision-making process in particular to stop countries from blocking measures and bogging down initiatives. India, South Africa and Turkey were not immediately available for comment. "The integration of the IFD into the WTO framework is a litmus test for members' willingness to turn reform discussions into practical action," a trade delegate told Reuters, describing it as disappointing. The EU delegation told members that the IFD did not hurt anyone's interest and that blocking it would "endanger" the multilateral trade system, according to a statement seen by Reuters. India and South Africa previously opposed the inclusion of the measure at high-level meetings, including the 2025 ministerial meeting in Abu Dhabi, where it failed to gain consensus. Keith Rockwell, a trade analyst at the Hinrich Foundation and former WTO communications director, told Reuters that India's continued obstruction of the IFD agreement is partly a tactic to gain leverage on food security negotiations. "It signals very difficult times ahead for reform in other areas," he added.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Top UN court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change. In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change. "States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets," Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law. The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control. Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met." "I didn't expect it to be this good," Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out. Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said: "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice." Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). Under international law, he said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second biggest current emitter behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations. With scepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said. Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem. The court's opinion is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace. Harj Narulla, Barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. "These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation," he said. Wednesday's opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.N. says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
