‘Dictatorial’ father of Sara Sharif said daughter ‘brings smile to my face’Today’s human life has become quite complicated—thanks to the multifarious inventions of modern technology. Machines of different types and functions developed by scientific pursuits of contemporary times have made human living far more comfortable than hitherto, at least on the face of it. Gadgets and devices to aid our daily life activities have made our chores easier and, in many cases, effortless. Today, we don’t have to physically exert much to perform most of our daily chores. By harnessing the enormous power of electricity, we have devised machines to perform all our tasks at the press of a button or the click of the computer ‘mouse’. Even tasks like reading, cataloguing, extracting, filtering and interpreting are being outsourced to the latest tool called Artificial Intelligence or AI. Despite the wonderful gifts of technology, as mentioned above, human peace and happiness are at a great premium. The individual feels vacuous inside, and there is a wanton feeling of fulfilment. There is a grave sense of insecurity pervading all. Ideas and ideologies are many, and these have been embraced by sets of human beings dispersed all over the globe, but most of such ideologies are at variance with each other in a few or many ways. These ideologies determine fashion, lifestyles, customs, traditions and habits, leading to broad cultural differences. And some of these differences are so sharp that human communities holding them are living in conflict mode, riven by mutual suspicion, fear and insecurity. Hence, insecurity has afflicted humans at the individual level as well as the community level. Insecurity is the greatest bane of modern times. A businessman feels insecure about the uncertainties of the demand and supply situation, which can affect the market for his traded goods. A stock trader is ever in fear of the bulls or bears overwhelming the market depending upon which trading position he has taken. An old person is afraid of moving around freely lest he should fall and sustain injuries. An average employee working in the corporate sector is ever afraid to lose his job. The ruler of a country feels constantly insecure in the face of powerful enemy countries located across its borders. A farmer growing seasonal crops is insecure about his crops because of the vagaries of monsoon rains. A tiny toddler or small child feels insecure when it loses sight of its mother. Youngsters are insecure about their conjugal relationships. Life is uncertain, and you can never be sure what problem or pitfall you may have to face in the immediate or near future and this future is actually unpredictable. The whole insurance industry thrives on this sense of human insecurity about the future. Insecurity is a universal reality, and we need to keep provisioning for material resources. But insecurity should not grip us, leading to disruption of mental peace and pesky worry or tension. It will then play havoc with our personality and mar our productivity. We have to develop a more rational and pragmatic perspective on fear and insecurity. Truly speaking, nagging insecurity is due to factors more internal to us than external. Actually, the nagging sense of insecurity of people in modern times springs from ignorance, illusion and lack of perseverance. The first and foremost issue of importance in this regard is that we should try to develop a logical, rational approach toward things. Being overly emotional and succumbing to anger, pride, passion, and greed dilutes our sense of objectivity and drags us away from the truth of things. We should try to find out the truth and grasp it in all situations and circumstances. For this, we need to shed our positive and negative biases towards things and persons and acquire a level-headed approach. Truth is not to be found on the extreme left side or the extreme right side of the emotion spectrum. It is located somewhere near the centre. When insecurity comes from factors external to us which are largely not in our control, we must understand that peace-disrupting forces are generated by running faulty paradigms of living which are not consistent with core, divine truths handed down to us by the creator in the primal scriptures called the Vedas. We should refer to these divinely ordained scriptures to align our institutional systems with eternal, core truths expounded therein. Life is beautiful and precious, and each one of us has the right to peaceful and progressive living. Celebrating the uncertainty of life and controlling the fear triggering internal and external factors can render our lives very peaceful and optimistic and banish insecurity. Atul Sehgal is the author of Guide to Inner Wellness and can be contacted at atul4956@gmail.comKey premiers dismiss Doug Ford's threat to stop Donald Trump's tariffs by cutting off energy to Americans
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol's brief imposition of martial law marks a new warning for the worldwide fragility of democracy, even in a country hailed as a model of political transformation. Yoon's overnight attempt to shut down political activity, censor media and lock out opposition lawmakers stunned South Korea's longtime ally, the United States, which said it had no advance warning and issued a statement of concern. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.What should Vikings do at QB in 2025? Sam Darnold makes Minnesota's J.J. McCarthy decision tougher | Sporting News
PLAINS, Ga. (AP) — Newly married and sworn as a Naval officer, Jimmy Carter left his tiny hometown in 1946 hoping to climb the ranks and see the world. Less than a decade later, the death of his father and namesake, a merchant farmer and local politician who went by “Mr. Earl,” prompted the submariner and his wife, Rosalynn, to return to the rural life of Plains, Georgia, they thought they’d escaped. The lieutenant never would be an admiral. Instead, he became commander in chief. Years after his presidency ended in humbling defeat, he would add a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded not for his White House accomplishments but “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” The life of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th and longest-lived U.S. president, ended Sunday at the age of 100 where it began: Plains, the town of 600 that fueled his political rise, welcomed him after his fall and sustained him during 40 years of service that redefined what it means to be a former president. With the stubborn confidence of an engineer and an optimism rooted in his Baptist faith, Carter described his motivations in politics and beyond in the same way: an almost missionary zeal to solve problems and improve lives. Carter was raised amid racism, abject poverty and hard rural living — realities that shaped both his deliberate politics and emphasis on human rights. “He always felt a responsibility to help people,” said Jill Stuckey, a longtime friend of Carter's in Plains. “And when he couldn’t make change wherever he was, he decided he had to go higher.” Carter's path, a mix of happenstance and calculation , pitted moral imperatives against political pragmatism; and it defied typical labels of American politics, especially caricatures of one-term presidents as failures. “We shouldn’t judge presidents by how popular they are in their day. That's a very narrow way of assessing them," Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told the Associated Press. “We should judge them by how they changed the country and the world for the better. On that score, Jimmy Carter is not in the first rank of American presidents, but he stands up quite well.” Later in life, Carter conceded that many Americans, even those too young to remember his tenure, judged him ineffective for failing to contain inflation or interest rates, end the energy crisis or quickly bring home American hostages in Iran. He gained admirers instead for his work at The Carter Center — advocating globally for public health, human rights and democracy since 1982 — and the decades he and Rosalynn wore hardhats and swung hammers with Habitat for Humanity. Yet the common view that he was better after the Oval Office than in it annoyed Carter, and his allies relished him living long enough to see historians reassess his presidency. “He doesn’t quite fit in today’s terms” of a left-right, red-blue scoreboard, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited the former president multiple times during his own White House bid. At various points in his political career, Carter labeled himself “progressive” or “conservative” — sometimes both at once. His most ambitious health care bill failed — perhaps one of his biggest legislative disappointments — because it didn’t go far enough to suit liberals. Republicans, especially after his 1980 defeat, cast him as a left-wing cartoon. It would be easiest to classify Carter as a centrist, Buttigieg said, “but there’s also something radical about the depth of his commitment to looking after those who are left out of society and out of the economy.” Indeed, Carter’s legacy is stitched with complexities, contradictions and evolutions — personal and political. The self-styled peacemaker was a war-trained Naval Academy graduate who promised Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy that he’d “kick his ass.” But he campaigned with a call to treat everyone with “respect and compassion and with love.” Carter vowed to restore America’s virtue after the shame of Vietnam and Watergate, and his technocratic, good-government approach didn't suit Republicans who tagged government itself as the problem. It also sometimes put Carter at odds with fellow Democrats. The result still was a notable legislative record, with wins on the environment, education, and mental health care. He dramatically expanded federally protected lands, began deregulating air travel, railroads and trucking, and he put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy. As a fiscal hawk, Carter added a relative pittance to the national debt, unlike successors from both parties. Carter nonetheless struggled to make his achievements resonate with the electorate he charmed in 1976. Quoting Bob Dylan and grinning enthusiastically, he had promised voters he would “never tell a lie.” Once in Washington, though, he led like a joyless engineer, insisting his ideas would become reality and he'd be rewarded politically if only he could convince enough people with facts and logic. This served him well at Camp David, where he brokered peace between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Epypt’s Anwar Sadat, an experience that later sparked the idea of The Carter Center in Atlanta. Carter's tenacity helped the center grow to a global force that monitored elections across five continents, enabled his freelance diplomacy and sent public health experts across the developing world. The center’s wins were personal for Carter, who hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm parasite, and nearly did. As president, though, the approach fell short when he urged consumers beleaguered by energy costs to turn down their thermostats. Or when he tried to be the nation’s cheerleader, beseeching Americans to overcome a collective “crisis of confidence.” Republican Ronald Reagan exploited Carter's lecturing tone with a belittling quip in their lone 1980 debate. “There you go again,” the former Hollywood actor said in response to a wonky answer from the sitting president. “The Great Communicator” outpaced Carter in all but six states. Carter later suggested he “tried to do too much, too soon” and mused that he was incompatible with Washington culture: media figures, lobbyists and Georgetown social elites who looked down on the Georgians and their inner circle as “country come to town.” Carter carefully navigated divides on race and class on his way to the Oval Office. Born Oct. 1, 1924 , Carter was raised in the mostly Black community of Archery, just outside Plains, by a progressive mother and white supremacist father. Their home had no running water or electricity but the future president still grew up with the relative advantages of a locally prominent, land-owning family in a system of Jim Crow segregation. He wrote of President Franklin Roosevelt’s towering presence and his family’s Democratic Party roots, but his father soured on FDR, and Jimmy Carter never campaigned or governed as a New Deal liberal. He offered himself as a small-town peanut farmer with an understated style, carrying his own luggage, bunking with supporters during his first presidential campaign and always using his nickname. And he began his political career in a whites-only Democratic Party. As private citizens, he and Rosalynn supported integration as early as the 1950s and believed it inevitable. Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council in Plains and spoke out in his Baptist church against denying Black people access to worship services. “This is not my house; this is not your house,” he said in a churchwide meeting, reminding fellow parishioners their sanctuary belonged to God. Yet as the appointed chairman of Sumter County schools he never pushed to desegregate, thinking it impractical after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision. And while presidential candidate Carter would hail the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson when Carter was a state senator, there is no record of Carter publicly supporting it at the time. Carter overcame a ballot-stuffing opponent to win his legislative seat, then lost the 1966 governor's race to an arch-segregationist. He won four years later by avoiding explicit mentions of race and campaigning to the right of his rival, who he mocked as “Cufflinks Carl” — the insult of an ascendant politician who never saw himself as part the establishment. Carter’s rural and small-town coalition in 1970 would match any victorious Republican electoral map in 2024. Once elected, though, Carter shocked his white conservative supporters — and landed on the cover of Time magazine — by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Before making the jump to Washington, Carter befriended the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom he’d never sought out as he eyed the governor’s office. Carter lamented his foot-dragging on school integration as a “mistake.” But he also met, conspicuously, with Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace to accept his primary rival's endorsement ahead of the 1976 Democratic convention. “He very shrewdly took advantage of his own Southerness,” said Amber Roessner, a University of Tennessee professor and expert on Carter’s campaigns. A coalition of Black voters and white moderate Democrats ultimately made Carter the last Democratic presidential nominee to sweep the Deep South. Then, just as he did in Georgia, he used his power in office to appoint more non-whites than all his predecessors had, combined. He once acknowledged “the secret shame” of white Americans who didn’t fight segregation. But he also told Alter that doing more would have sacrificed his political viability – and thus everything he accomplished in office and after. King's daughter, Bernice King, described Carter as wisely “strategic” in winning higher offices to enact change. “He was a leader of conscience,” she said in an interview. Rosalynn Carter, who died on Nov. 19 at the age of 96, was identified by both husband and wife as the “more political” of the pair; she sat in on Cabinet meetings and urged him to postpone certain priorities, like pressing the Senate to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. “Let that go until the second term,” she would sometimes say. The president, recalled her former aide Kathy Cade, retorted that he was “going to do what’s right” even if “it might cut short the time I have.” Rosalynn held firm, Cade said: “She’d remind him you have to win to govern.” Carter also was the first president to appoint multiple women as Cabinet officers. Yet by his own telling, his career sprouted from chauvinism in the Carters' early marriage: He did not consult Rosalynn when deciding to move back to Plains in 1953 or before launching his state Senate bid a decade later. Many years later, he called it “inconceivable” that he didn’t confer with the woman he described as his “full partner,” at home, in government and at The Carter Center. “We developed a partnership when we were working in the farm supply business, and it continued when Jimmy got involved in politics,” Rosalynn Carter told AP in 2021. So deep was their trust that when Carter remained tethered to the White House in 1980 as 52 Americans were held hostage in Tehran, it was Rosalynn who campaigned on her husband’s behalf. “I just loved it,” she said, despite the bitterness of defeat. Fair or not, the label of a disastrous presidency had leading Democrats keep their distance, at least publicly, for many years, but Carter managed to remain relevant, writing books and weighing in on societal challenges. He lamented widening wealth gaps and the influence of money in politics. He voted for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later declared that America had devolved from fully functioning democracy to “oligarchy.” Yet looking ahead to 2020, with Sanders running again, Carter warned Democrats not to “move to a very liberal program,” lest they help re-elect President Donald Trump. Carter scolded the Republican for his serial lies and threats to democracy, and chided the U.S. establishment for misunderstanding Trump’s populist appeal. He delighted in yearly convocations with Emory University freshmen, often asking them to guess how much he’d raised in his two general election campaigns. “Zero,” he’d gesture with a smile, explaining the public financing system candidates now avoid so they can raise billions. Carter still remained quite practical in partnering with wealthy corporations and foundations to advance Carter Center programs. Carter recognized that economic woes and the Iran crisis doomed his presidency, but offered no apologies for appointing Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate hikes would not curb inflation until Reagan's presidency. He was proud of getting all the hostages home without starting a shooting war, even though Tehran would not free them until Reagan's Inauguration Day. “Carter didn’t look at it” as a failure, Alter emphasized. “He said, ‘They came home safely.’ And that’s what he wanted.” Well into their 90s, the Carters greeted visitors at Plains’ Maranatha Baptist Church, where he taught Sunday School and where he will have his last funeral before being buried on family property alongside Rosalynn . Carter, who made the congregation’s collection plates in his woodworking shop, still garnered headlines there, calling for women’s rights within religious institutions, many of which, he said, “subjugate” women in church and society. Carter was not one to dwell on regrets. “I am at peace with the accomplishments, regret the unrealized goals and utilize my former political position to enhance everything we do,” he wrote around his 90th birthday. The politician who had supposedly hated Washington politics also enjoyed hosting Democratic presidential contenders as public pilgrimages to Plains became advantageous again. Carter sat with Buttigieg for the final time March 1, 2020, hours before the Indiana mayor ended his campaign and endorsed eventual winner Joe Biden. “He asked me how I thought the campaign was going,” Buttigieg said, recalling that Carter flashed his signature grin and nodded along as the young candidate, born a year after Carter left office, “put the best face” on the walloping he endured the day before in South Carolina. Never breaking his smile, the 95-year-old host fired back, “I think you ought to drop out.” “So matter of fact,” Buttigieg said with a laugh. “It was somehow encouraging.” Carter had lived enough, won plenty and lost enough to take the long view. “He talked a lot about coming from nowhere,” Buttigieg said, not just to attain the presidency but to leverage “all of the instruments you have in life” and “make the world more peaceful.” In his farewell address as president, Carter said as much to the country that had embraced and rejected him. “The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color, nation or language,” he declared. “Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity and who suffer for the sake of justice — they are the patriots of this cause.” Carter pledged to remain engaged with and for them as he returned “home to the South where I was born and raised,” home to Plains, where that young lieutenant had indeed become “a fellow citizen of the world.” —- Bill Barrow, based in Atlanta, has covered national politics including multiple presidential campaigns for the AP since 2012.Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont's high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents' wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella's suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella's son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school's assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct" that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn't want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn't say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court's mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” John Klar, who also represents the Politellas, went a step further, telling the AP that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling means that “as a matter of law” schools can get away with vaccinating students without parental consent and that parents can only sue on the federal level if death or serious bodily injury results. — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .Organised crime gangs lurking on motorways send cargo thefts soaring by half to £102m - with 'homegrown' groups blamed for majority of raids on lorry drivers to seize luxury brands By EMILY JANE DAVIES Published: 18:53 EST, 29 December 2024 | Updated: 18:55 EST, 29 December 2024 e-mail View comments Organised crime gangs are lurking on motorways to steal cargo from lorry drivers and targeting luxury brand deliveries, experts claim. Brits always go on a spending spree at Christmas , then again during the January sales - and criminals have been nabbing their presents before they can arrive. Make up, perfume, clothing and tech are among the products snatched from lorries on the road or parked at the motorway services. These thefts reached the value of £102million this year, up from £68million recorded in the previous 12 months. Investigators said four high-value thefts - including cosmetics worth £4million - contributed to the loss figure surging by half, according to The Times. The cargo is then broken up - or 'slaughtered' in police-lingo - and distributed through the black market, making its way onto social media and online marketplaces at a discount. Cops said much of it ends up on eBay , Facebook Marketplace, Amazon, Gumtree, TikTok and Vinted. And almost all - 99 per cent - of the thieving is carried out by homegrown criminal networks based in Coventry, Essex, Leeds, Liverpool and London . Make up, perfume, clothing and tech are among products snatched from lorries on the road or parked at motorway services A gang seen targeting a lorry with high-value presents inside Almost all - 99 per cent - of the thieving is carried out by homegrown criminal networks based in Coventry, Essex, Leeds, Liverpool and London The M6 is a target for gin and whiskey being transported from Scotland Speaking to The Times , Michael Dawber, a field intelligence officer at the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service, said: 'Cargo theft is seen as 'low risk, high reward' by criminals if they can pull it off and clever marketing strategies mean stolen goods are often hiding in plain sight. Unfortunately, well-meaning members of the public are unwittingly buying them.' He said eight pallets of designer perfume were stolen from a lorry on the M20 in Kent, with an estimated £1.5 million retail value. And 'within 24 hours' there were 15 eBay accounts selling it across southern England. Criminals lay in wait along the M1 for high-value electrical goods leaving warehouses in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, while the M6 is a target for gin and whiskey being transported from Scotland. This year, 14 thefts had a gang follow a lorry and they climbed out of a sunroof and broke into the trailer in a dangerous technique called the 'Romanian rollover'. Haulage firm bosses also say they are powerless to stop rising thefts from their lorries conducted by Goodfellas-style organised crime gangs, who are stealing food, cigarettes and alcohol to sell on the black market. Figures produced by the British Standards Institution suggest 24 per cent of all thefts from lorries and warehouses last year were food and drink, up from 13 per cent in 2022 - with the goods being sold online within days. The managing director of one haulage firm told MailOnline the thefts were driving up the prices of deliveries - hitting shoppers' wallets - and creating recruitment problems. The crimes are also hard for police to detect, he added. Criminology experts say the gangs are professional - researching when and where lorries are making deliveries, as well as where drivers are likely to stop so they can pounce without using violence, unlike their fictional counterparts. The thieves typically strike in 'secure' car parks - protected by CCTV, but usually unmanned - slashing holes in the curtains on the sides of transporters or even parking another lorry alongside and moving the goods from one into the other. The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVICS), a nationwide police initiative tracking and cracking down on freight crime, says it is aware of 5,000 freight crimes in 2022, with £70million of goods stolen. A vehicle which had earlier failed to stop for police, leading to a chase on the northbound M606, ended up containing stolen booze A £70,000 stash of stolen whisky was found in the back of a lorry by police in an incident that briefly closed the M606 near Bradford Two males, who were in the lorry, were arrested by police In December, it was made aware of thefts including a trailer containing £50,000 of cheese, while another was stolen containing food and washing powder at an industrial estate in Kidderminster. That same month, a £70,000 stash of stolen whisky was found in the back of a lorry by police in an incident that briefly closed the M606 near Bradford. Officers from West Yorkshire's Roads Policing Unit were carrying out a drink drive patrol when they came across a 'suspicious' lorry. The vehicle had earlier failed to stop for officers, leading to a brief chase on the northbound M606. A government spokesperson said: 'Freight crime can have significant impacts on businesses and drivers and we are working closely with the police, automotive industry and National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service to ensure our response is as strong as it can be. 'We are increasing the capacity for safe and secure HGV parking and are working to analyse HGV-related crimes in England, with a specific focus on identifying high crime areas and crime patterns with existing HGV parking provisions.' London New York Times Amazon Leeds TikTok Share or comment on this article: Organised crime gangs lurking on motorways send cargo thefts soaring by half to £102m - with 'homegrown' groups blamed for majority of raids on lorry drivers to seize luxury brands e-mail Add comment
Happy 15th Anniversary, KrebsOnSecurity!Stock market today: Wall Street gains ground as it notches a winning week and another Dow recordWithdrawal from GNU nothing to do with positions: UAT
Construction ends on Port Kembla Energy TerminalDrone operators worry that anxiety over mystery sightings will lead to new restrictionsNEW YORK (AP) — Free agent pitchers Luis Gabriel Moreno and Alejandro Crisostomo were suspended for 80 games each by Major League Baseball on Friday following positive tests for performance-enhancing substances under the minor league drug program. Moreno tested positive for Nandrolone, and Crisostomo tested positive for Boldenone and Nandrolone, the commissioner’s office said. A 26-year-old right-hander, Moreno was released by the New York Mets’ Class A Brooklyn Cyclones on Tuesday. He was 5-1 with a 5.33 ERA in 12 relief appearances this season for Brooklyn after spending 2016-23 in the San Francisco Giants organization. Crisostomo, a 24-year-old right-hander, was released by Minnesota on Aug. 24 after going 0-1 with a 7.13 ERA this year with the Florida Complex League Twins. He signed with Boston in 2017, spent 2018 in the Dominican Summer League with the Red Sox, then signed with Minnesota and spent 2023 with the Twins DSL team. Nineteen players have been suspended this year for positive drug tests, including eight under the minor league program and nine under the new program for minor league players assigned outside the United States and Canada. Two players have been suspended this year under the major league drug program. Noelvi Marté , a 22-year-old infielder who is the Cincinnati Reds’ top prospect, missed the first 80 games following a positive test for boldenone. Toronto Blue Jays infielder Orelvis Martínez was suspended for 80 games on June 23 following a positive test for the performance-enhancing drug clomiphene, an announcement made two days after his major league debut . AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/mlb
