Labour Party Suspends Abbott Following Controversial Racist Comments
MP Diane Abbott has been suspended by the Labour Party while they investigate comments she made about racism. Because of this, she will now sit as an independent MP, which means she has lost the party whip. The Labour Party said they won’t be commenting until the investigation is finished. This suspension comes after Abbott spoke about racism in a recent BBC interview. During the interview, Abbott said, “I just think it’s silly to say racism about skin colour is the same as other kinds of racism.” Her words have caused a lot of discussion. This isn’t the first time Abbott has been in trouble over this issue. Back in 2023, she was suspended for a year after making similar comments in a letter about racism. In a letter to the Observer newspaper, she stated that Irish, Jewish, and Traveller communities “undoubtedly experience prejudice” similar to racism. She emphasised that these groups face discrimination that closely resembles racial bias. Furthermore, she noted that many white people with distinct traits, such as redheads, also encounter prejudice. However, she clarified that they do not face racism throughout their entire lives. Soon after, Abbott quickly withdrew her remarks following strong criticism from Jewish and Traveller organisations. Additionally, she apologised sincerely “for any anguish caused” by her comments. Despite her apology, the party suspended her. Nevertheless, she regained party membership just before last year’s general election. When BBC’s James Naughtie asked if she regretted the incident, Abbott responded clearly, “No, not at all.” This statement surprised many and sparked further discussion. Overall, the episode highlights ongoing debates about prejudice, racism, and the boundaries between them in society today. Racism Looks Different for Everyone: Visible vs. Invisible Bias She pointed out something important. Racism doesn’t always look the same. Sometimes, you can’t tell where someone comes from just by looking at them. If a Traveller or a Jewish person walks past you, you probably won’t know their background unless you talk to them. But it’s different for Black people. When you see someone who’s Black, you often notice their skin color right away. That makes them stand out in a way others don’t. She wanted people to understand that. Racism comes in different shapes. It doesn’t always hit people the same way. Some folks can blend in. Others get judged the second someone sees them. That’s why we need to talk about it. We can’t treat all racism like it works the same. It doesn’t. And when we see that clearly, we can start to deal with it better. Women also said it doesn’t make sense to say that racism about skin color is the same as other kinds of racism. She feels that visible racism, which is about how someone looks, is different from other experiences of racism. This distinction, she believes, is important. She added that sometimes you need to get to know someone to understand their background. This is different from racism based on skin color, which you see immediately. Because of this, she thinks that racism based on skin color should be treated as a separate issue. When asked about these comments, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said she was disappointed. She told The Guardian that there is no place for antisemitism in the Labour Party. She also stressed that the party has clear rules and processes to deal with such problems. Overall, these remarks have started a wider conversation about how complex racism is. Many people agree that it’s important to recognize the different ways racism affects various groups. Abbott Addresses Racism Claims and Party Pressure Diane thought back on how she put that article together. She admitted, “That wasn’t the version I meant to publish.” Now, trying to say, “Actually, I didn’t mean that,” only makes things harder for her. She prefers to stick with what she originally said. In her recent BBC interview, Abbott faced a tough question. The interviewer asked if she would condemn antisemitic behavior the same way she condemns racism based on skin color. She answered clearly, “Of course I would.” At the same time, she felt frustrated that some people accused her of being antisemitic. She pointed out that she has spent her whole life fighting all kinds of racism. She especially focuses on fighting antisemitism because of her community. Abbott represents Hackney North and Stoke Newington. She has served as an MP since 1987, making her the longest-serving female MP in the House of Commons. Miss also talked about her experience as a Labour MP. She said she feels grateful to hold this position. However, she believes the party leaders have tried to push her out. This shows she still faces challenges within her party.
Mother and Son Found Safe in California Forest After Leaving Handwritten Rescue Notes.
A mom and her 9-year-old son are safe after getting lost in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California. They were stranded for more than 24 hours — with no phone signal and no way to call for help. But this brave mom didn’t give up. Instead, she started writing notes asking for help and left them under rocks along the trail. One note said, “HELP. Me and my son are stranded with no service and can’t call 911.” That simple idea helped save their lives. A volunteer search and rescue team from Calaveras County just happened to be nearby. As they walked through the area, they spotted one of the notes. Right away, they started looking — and soon found the mother and son. Both were okay, just tired and shaken. Speaking to ABC10, the mom called it a “very scary experience.” She also said she was incredibly thankful for the rescuers and their quick response. “They were amazing,” she added. This story shows how a little creativity and a lot of courage can make a big difference. Even without technology, staying calm and thinking ahead helped this mom protect her child — and get them both home safely. The Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office shared the emotional rescue story in a Facebook post that quickly gained attention. On July 11, someone called the Calaveras County Dispatch Center with growing concern. They explained that a mother and her young son hadn’t returned after heading to Camp Wolfeboro earlier that morning. Even more worrying, the caller said they couldn’t reach either of them by phone. Because of that, deputies knew they needed to act fast. The search began right away, focusing on the remote forested area around the camp. Later, the mother—who introduced herself as Tami—spoke with ABC10 about what really happened. She said she and her son, Stirling, had no cell service. As a result, they couldn’t call for help. In a smart move, Stirling started blowing his Cub Scout whistle to get anyone’s attention. Tami explained they were simply trying to get Stirling to his camping trip when things went wrong. Still, she stayed calm, and Stirling did what he had learned in Scouts. Thanks to their quick thinking and strong bond, they made it through—and rescuers were able to find them in time. A mother and her teenage son were recently rescued in New Hampshire after getting lost in the woods. Luckily, a volunteer search and rescue team was already nearby for their monthly training. As soon as the call came in, the team got to work. They quickly set up a command post along the highway that leads to Wolfeboro. From there, they began exploring the area. The woods had a confusing mix of dirt roads and trails. Still, the team used their knowledge to plan a smart search route. They brought in off-road vehicles and even used aircraft to help scan the area. Then, a big break came. A group of campers texted an emergency number. They said they saw a car that matched the one driven by the missing pair. That message confirmed the team was in the right place. Soon after, searchers found a handwritten note left on the side of the road. It said, “We are ahead, up the road to the right. Please call 911 to get help for us. Thank you!” With new hope, the team followed the direction in the message. Not long after, they discovered a second note. This one had the names of the missing mother and son, along with a phone number. About a mile down the road, the search team found them — safe but stranded. The mother, Tami, later told ABC10 that she heard a truck honk and turned around. “It was the best feeling ever,” she said. She and her son, Stirling, had spent the night inside their car. They stayed there to keep safe from wild animals. Thankfully, they had food and water with them. The car had gotten stuck, so the rescue team used special equipment to pull it free. After that, they helped Tami and Stirling return to their waiting family. Officials later explained what went wrong. Their GPS stopped working after they reached a remote area. Without it, they couldn’t find their way back. This rescue was a reminder of how quickly things can go wrong in the woods. But it also showed how fast action, teamwork, and technology can help save lives.
US Senate Approves $9B Cut to Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting.
The US Senate recently approved a bill to cut $9 billion (£6.7 billion) from money that Congress had already agreed to spend. These cuts include funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid. It’s part of a bigger effort to reduce government spending. The vote was very close—51 to 48—and happened early Thursday morning after a long night of back-and-forth debates. During that time, Republican senators discussed and made changes to the bill. This bill is called a rescissions package, which means it lets Congress take back some of the money it had previously promised to spend. It’s also connected to President Donald Trump’s goal to lower federal spending overall. Next, the bill goes back to the House of Representatives. The House had already passed a similar version with $9.4 billion in cuts. Now, both the House and Senate will need to agree on the final version before it can become law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called this bill a small but important step toward fixing the budget. He said it’s something we’ve needed for a long time and should all agree on. Before the vote, senators disagreed about a plan in the House bill that would cut about $400 million from PEPFAR, the US program that fights HIV/AIDS around the world. Luckily, Republicans agreed to an amendment that kept the money for PEPFAR. This means the program can keep helping people stay healthy. However, many other ideas to protect international aid and public broadcasting didn’t pass. The Senate’s version of the bill still cuts about $8 billion from several aid programs. This includes health programs run by USAID, the US’s main agency for global help. The bill also cuts more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This group supports NPR, PBS, and many radio stations that people, especially in rural areas, depend on. Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska voted against the bill. She was one of only two Republicans who joined all Democrats in saying no, partly because of the cuts to public broadcasting. So, while this bill takes a step toward better money management, it also means tough cuts that will affect important health and media programs. In the end, this shows how hard it is to balance the budget while still supporting programs many people rely on every day. After the Senate passed a new spending bill, NPR President Katherine Maher spoke out about the need to protect public media. She said keeping this funding in place is essential, not just for NPR, but for communities that count on it. Just a few days ago, people in Alaska were told to tune into a local radio station with NPR programming. They needed to hear tsunami warnings after an earthquake hit nearby. Maher pointed to that moment as a clear example of why public radio still saves lives. That’s why she’s urging the House of Representatives to keep public media funding. Cutting it, she said, would hurt local communities and leave people without trusted news during emergencies. “It could very well put lives at risk,” she warned. Now, the bill moves to the House for a vote. But things are uncertain. Lawmakers have already removed $400 million from earlier proposed cuts, and it’s unclear what will happen next. When reporters asked about the changes, House Speaker Mike Johnson didn’t seem pleased. “We wanted them to pass it unaltered like we did,” he said. For this bill to pass, both the House and Senate have to agree on the same version. And time is running out—they have until Friday. If they miss the deadline, Republicans won’t get another shot at pushing these cuts. At the heart of this debate is a simple question: Should people lose access to life-saving information just to save money? For many, especially in rural and underserved areas, public media isn’t a luxury—it’s a lifeline.
Meta Settles $8B Privacy Lawsuit with Zuckerberg.
Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to settle a major lawsuit with Meta shareholders. The case centered on how Facebook handled user privacy. Shareholders had originally sought $8 billion in damages. However, it’s still unclear how much the final settlement totaled. The news broke on Thursday, just before the trial entered its second day in Delaware. A lawyer representing the shareholders shared the announcement. Meta chose not to make a public statement about the deal. That silence left many wondering what the settlement could mean for the company. At the heart of the lawsuit was the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Shareholders claimed Zuckerberg’s decisions led to the data leak. In that scandal, data from millions of Facebook users was harvested and misused by a political consulting firm. Naturally, that sparked global outrage. Shareholders also argued that Meta’s leadership ignored early warnings. They believed stronger data protection could have prevented the crisis. Now, with the lawsuit behind them, Zuckerberg and Meta are trying to move forward. Even so, the damage to trust may take longer to repair. Meta’s shareholders are demanding accountability. They’ve asked a judge to order 11 former and current board members to repay the company more than $8 billion. That money, they say, went toward legal fees and fines related to Facebook’s massive privacy scandals. At the heart of it all is the Cambridge Analytica debacle. The data firm got access to information from millions of Facebook users without their consent. They later used that data to support Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. When the news broke, the backlash was swift and costly. To move past the scandal, Facebook had to settle with regulators and users around the world. Those settlements didn’t come cheap. According to shareholders, Meta paid billions simply to clean up the damage. Now, investors want those responsible to help cover the cost. They argue that Meta’s board failed to protect both the company and its users. They say the directors ignored warning signs and let the situation spiral out of control. One of the people named in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Zients. He joined Meta’s board in 2018 and stayed for two years. More recently, he served as President Joe Biden’s White House chief of staff. Another well-known figure on the list is Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies. Thiel was one of Meta’s earliest investors and held a board seat during some of Facebook’s most turbulent years. Reed Hastings, the co-founder of Netflix, is also being held accountable by shareholders. He served on Meta’s board during the Cambridge Analytica crisis and is now part of the legal fight. In the end, this case isn’t just about money—it’s about trust. Shareholders want leadership that puts users first and takes responsibility when things go wrong.