In Karachi, Pakistan’s economic capital and largest city, fear has become a commodity. In 2024, Forbes Advisor ranked Karachi as the second-most dangerous city in the world for tourists. Due to the ineffectiveness of law enforcement agencies in curbing this violence, private security companies are thriving and expanding their clientele beyond affluent residential areas to include schools, shopping malls and corporate headquarters. This rapidly expanding and largely unregulated private security sector is turning Karachi’s chronic insecurity into a lucrative business. FRANCE 24’s Shahzaib Wahlah, Sonia Ghezali and Ondine de Gaulle report.
This story originally appeared on France24
Pakistan's Karachi sees rise in bodyguards as private security business booms
The First Private Prosecution of a Grooming Gang Rapist: A Blueprint for Justice | The Gateway Pundit
The grooming gang scandal is a stain on British history. How did we allow hordes of gangs of Muslim Pakistani men to prey on white English girls?
When Sikh girls were targeted, the Sikh community united, forming vigilante groups to protect them. Since the early 1980s, British Sikh organizations have documented sexual abuse and exploitation of young Sikh females by grooming gangs populated by perpetrators of primarily Pakistani Muslim heritage. The Sikh community cared for their girls. The English seemingly did not. In fact, the media, politicians, police, and child services willfully ignored it.
This article chronicles the groundbreaking civil case brought by a Rotherham survivor, anonymized as “Elizabeth,” against her convicted rapist, Asghar Bostan. As the first known instance of a grooming gang survivor securing financial compensation directly from her abuser, this case offers a blueprint for hundreds of other survivors seeking justice.
A Scandal Ignored for Decades
The grooming gang scandal first surfaced in a 1975 Rotherham Advertiser report, but it was much later when national journalists covered it. Julie Bindel wrote about it in The Sunday Times in 2007, followed by Andrew Norfolk’s front-page coverage in The Times in 2012. For years, the only politician to speak out was Labour MP for Keighley, Ann Cryer, who raised alarms after mothers reported their 12- and 13-year-old daughters being sexually exploited by older Asian men, with police and social services refusing to act. The first trial and convictions took place in 1997 in Leeds.
Since then, over 450 men have been convicted in over 75 trials across 40 towns, from Rotherham to Rochdale, Oxford to Bradford. Yet, not one of these cases resulted in financial compensation from perpetrators to victims, despite convictions for heinous crimes. In Yorkshire, a region with a Christian heritage dating back to Roman times, towns like Bradford now have 100 mosques and a 25% Muslim population, a demographic shift intertwined with the scandal’s narrative. This story exposes the English establishment’s failure to confront these gangs, leaving survivors like Elizabeth to fight for justice.
The Case: Elizabeth v. Asghar Bostan
August 2020: A Survivor’s Fight Begins
In August 2020, Alan Craig and Baroness Cox met Elizabeth in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. Elizabeth was raped as a teenager by Asghar Bostan, a taxi driver convicted on 9 February 2018 at Sheffield Crown Court for two counts of child rape (2000-2002) under Operation Stovewood, the National Crime Agency’s investigation into Rotherham child sexual exploitation (1997-2013). He received a 9-year sentence. Moved by her courage, the team, supported by Hearts of Oak, vowed to seek financial justice through a civil suit. Peter McIlvenna helped secure £30,000 from Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Vinson to cover legal costs, as Elizabeth could not afford the tens of thousands required.
September 2020: Assembling the Legal Team
Finding a lawyer for this unprecedented case was challenging. Robin Tilbrook, a determined solicitor, agreed to represent Elizabeth and instructed a barrister. Inspired by the adage, “It always seems impossible until it’s done,” often attributed to Nelson Mandela, the team aimed to make history.
October 2020: A Parole System Betrayal
In October 2020, Elizabeth learned Bostan had been moved to an open prison without her knowledge, after serving only 32 months. Open prisons allow weekend releases, leaving Elizabeth terrified he could harass her. The Ministry of Justice offered a bland apology, admitting the oversight. Assessed as a low abscond risk, no clear evaluation addressed his potential to reoffend.
December 2020 – March 2021: The Transcript Battle
Securing court transcripts from Bostan’s 2018 trial was arduous. Lord Pearson requested them via the House of Lords Library, which contacted Sheffield Crown Court. The judge approved release on 13 January 2021, but the full four-day hearing transcript cost over £2,000, deemed too expensive by the Library. Partial transcripts, covering only the final judgment, arrived in mid-February. The team paid for additional parts, exposing a system where even Parliament struggles to access legal records.
July 2021: Barrister Engaged
While awaiting transcripts, Tilbrook instructed a barrister to advance the civil claim.
November 2021: First Court Hearing
On 15 November 2021, Liz v. Asghar Hussain Bostan was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice. After 2.5 hours, the judge granted anonymity for Elizabeth, waived the five-year limitation for personal injury claims, and froze Bostan’s assets, a key step forward.
August 2022: Rapist Freed Early
Bostan was paroled in August 2022 after serving half his 9-year sentence, with conditions barring him from Rotherham. The lack of electronic monitoring heightened Elizabeth’s fears.
October 2022: Second Hearing for Extensions
A second hearing extended the asset freeze and requested a £10,000 fee exemption. The judge, surprised by delays in issuing the exemption, intervened.
January 2023: Claim Submitted
After securing the £10,000 fee waiver, the team submitted Elizabeth’s compensation claim, challenging a system that burdens victims with financial barriers.
March 2023: Landmark Damages Award
On 27 March 2023, the High Court ordered Bostan to pay £425,934.09 in damages, later revised to ~£450,000 with interest. Bostan, who did not engage, faced default judgment and potential bankruptcy.
September 2023: Interim Charging Order
An interim charging order was granted against Bostan’s property, preventing its sale or transfer.
November 2023: Final Charging Order
The charging order was finalized, securing Elizabeth’s claim against Bostan’s assets.
January 2024: Parole Breach
Bostan was spotted one mile from Elizabeth’s home, breaching parole conditions. Without electronic monitoring, his movements went unchecked until reported, leading to his recall to prison.
May 2024: Second Fee Exemption
The court approved another £10,000 fee waiver, underscoring the system’s relentless demands. The courts always want their pound of flesh!
October 2024: Order of Sale Issued
With the final fee exemption secured, Tilbrook issued an order to sell Bostan’s property, advancing the compensation process.
June 2025: Parole Denied
On 25 June 2025, Elizabeth delivered a victim impact statement via video link at a Parole Board hearing, facing Bostan and his solicitor. She called the process torturous, as the legal system seemed to punish victims further. The Board denied parole, requiring Bostan to serve his full sentence until February 2027.
September 2025: Awaiting Final Enforcement
As of September 2025, the team, with support from Hearts of Oak, awaits a final court date to enforce the sale of Bostan’s property, completing the compensation process.
The Heroes in This Long Fight
Elizabeth: Her inner strength and tenacity turned a tragic story into a hopeful outcome for herself and other survivors.
Baroness Cox: As Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Honour-Based Abuse, she has been a tireless voice for these girls.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The only outspoken House of Lords member for survivors, he raised crucial funds for this case.
Robin Tilbrook: His legal expertise drove this unprecedented fight for financial justice.
The Villains
The courts and Ministry of Justice dragged their feet, further punishing survivors with delays, £10,000 fees, and parole oversights. Even a judge was shocked at the inaction, showing the systemic barriers to justice.
A Call to Action
Elizabeth’s case is a blueprint: secure funding, assemble a legal team, obtain transcripts, seek anonymity and fee waivers, freeze assets, and pursue damages through charging orders and property sales. We urge survivors to follow this path and call on donors to fund a hundred more cases. Elizabeth’s victory proves justice is possible.
#LFG!
This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit
Six foods that are good for your heart health and cut cholesterol
Research suggests when we eat our meals could be crucial for maintaining a healthy heart. Scientists from the University of Southampton and Mass General Brigham in the United States discovered that previous studies had connected night shift work to heart problems.
They say their latest research demonstrates that consuming food during daylight hours may help reduce these dangers.
The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, examined 20 healthy volunteers who spent a fortnight in a controlled environment mimicking night shifts, consuming meals either during nighttime or daytime hours.
The scientists then evaluated how meal timing affected participants’ heart disease risk factors, including markers of the autonomic nervous system, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (a compound that raises blood clot risk), and blood pressure.
They discovered no harmful effects on these risk factors amongst those who ate during daylight hours, reports Surrey Live.
Professor Frank Scheer, a professor of medicine and director of the Medical Chronobiology Programme at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained: “Our prior research has shown that circadian misalignment – the mistiming of our behavioural cycle relative to our internal body clock – increases cardiovascular risk factors. We wanted to understand what can be done to lower this risk, and our new research suggests food timing could be that target.”
Given this finding, are there particular types of food that are especially beneficial for our cardiovascular health?
We spoke to a dietitian and a cardiologist, who revealed some of the advantages that the following six foods can offer for our heart…
1. Salmon
“I’d recommend including foods like salmon, which is packed with omega-3 fatty acids that can help reduce inflammation and support healthy cholesterol levels,” says Dr Jay Shah, cardiologist and chief medical officer at Hilo.
Rosie Carr, dietitian at healthy eating plan Second Nature suggests baking salmon with a drizzle of lemon juice and herbs in the oven at 180°C for 15-20 minutes, or poaching it in a fragrant broth for a tender, moist result.
2. Oats
“Whole grains like oats provide complex carbohydrates that help maintain steady blood sugar levels, preventing the inflammatory spikes that can damage blood vessels over time,” says Carr.
They are also packed with soluble fibre which Shah says helps to reduce ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol.
“I often suggest overnight oats or porridge with berries as an easy daily option,” recommends Shah.
3. Leafy greens
“These foods are rich in dietary nitrates that convert to nitric oxide in the body, helping blood vessels dilate, improving blood flow, and lowering blood pressure,” says Carr. “Regular consumption has been linked to improved exercise performance and cardiovascular function.”
Kale and spinach are also packed full of potassium. “Leafy greens are brilliant for their potassium content and they help to balance sodium levels in the body,” says Shah.
“They can be easily added to soups, stews or stir-fries as a healthy addition.”
4. Extra virgin olive oil
“Extra virgin olive oil is rich in monounsaturated fats, and powerful antioxidants called polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and inflammation,” explains Carr. “Chronic low-grade inflammation contributes to heart disease by impacting the health of our arteries.”
The dietitian recommends using it as a finishing oil on vegetables, in homemade salad dressings, or for low-temperature cooking.
“You could also drizzle it over wholegrain bread instead of butter,” adds Carr.
5. Tomatoes
“Tomatoes are a lycopene-rich food, and lycopene is a powerful antioxidant that reduces inflammation and prevents cholesterol oxidation,” explains Carr. “Interestingly, cooking tomatoes increases the bioavailability of lycopene.
“So, I recommend slow-roasting tomatoes with a bit of olive oil to concentrate flavours and boost lycopene availability, or incorporate tomato paste into stews and sauces.”
6. Fermented dairy (yoghurt, kefir)
“Fermented dairy products contain probiotics that may help reduce blood pressure and chronic inflammation,” says Carr. “The vitamin K2 in these foods helps prevent calcium from building up in arterial walls.
“I recommend using plain, unsweetened yoghurt as a base for breakfast bowls, as a substitute for sour cream, or in marinades.”
This story originally appeared on Express.co.uk
How to Overcome These 7 Hidden Purchase Barriers
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
You have had a promising conversation with your customer. They nodded, said they liked your offer, maybe even said, “Yes, sounds good.” But then there was no follow-up, no payment from that customer and you see zero sales.
If this has happened more than a few times, you’re not alone. According to a HubSpot study, 60% of customers say “yes” or show interest during a sales process but end up ghosting before the transaction is completed, at least four times before they buy. So what gives?
In business, the gap between “yes” and “checkout” is where most opportunities quietly die. It’s not just a sales problem. It’s a clarity problem, a trust problem and sometimes just bad timing. Let’s break down some most common reasons people agree with your pitch but still walk away and what you can do to close the loop.
Related: Cart Abandonment Is Costing You Customers — Here’s How to Stop It
1. They didn’t want to be rude
Sometimes your customer may say yes just to end the conversation and avoid conflict. In sales, politeness can be your biggest illusion. The prospect may have no real intention to buy, but they nod, smile and may say, “I’ll think about it,” or “Send me the link.” We often take that as a green light. But it is not.
What to do:
Instead of asking, “Are you interested?” you can ask something slightly more specific, such as “What concerns do you still have?” or “Is this something you’re ready for now, or down the line?”
Let them tell you the truth before you waste time chasing a dead lead.
2. They don’t trust something — yet
Trust is rarely built in a single conversation or one landing page. A customer might be sold on the product but unsure about your brand, your return policy or whether you’ll deliver what you promised. Even if they like what they hear, hesitation can creep in the moment they feel even slightly uncertain, especially in crowded markets.
What to do:
Make your trust signals visible and easy to verify. Add real testimonials (not vague ones), a money-back guarantee or some transparency around how long shipping or onboarding takes.
3. The decision wasn’t fully theirs
Customers will sometimes say yes because they want to buy, but they are not the final decision-maker. This is more common in B2B, but it happens in everyday transactions too (think of someone needing to check with their spouse or manager).
It’s not that they didn’t like your offer. They just weren’t authorized to pull the trigger.
What to do:
Ask directly, “Is there anyone else who needs to sign off on this?” earlier in the conversation. If the answer is yes, give them shareable materials, FAQs or a few quick demos that they can easily forward.
Related: Beyond the First Sale — How to Keep Your Customers Coming Back for More
4. They mentally said “not now”
Timing is a silent killer in sales. You pitch something that makes sense, and the customer is also mentally on board, but their priorities can shift. They may say yes, but they mean, “Yes … eventually.” And that “eventually” can slip off their radar unless you follow up with the right nudge.
What to do:
Instead of just asking, “Are you ready to buy now?” give them a reason to act sooner. A limited-time benefit, a booking link with available slots or even a checklist to prep for onboarding can shift their mindset from eventually to let’s do it now.
Don’t push them, but you can try to shorten the gap between their interest and action.
5. The process was just slightly too complicated
It only takes a little bit of friction to lose a sale. One more form field, an unclear shipping note or maybe they have to complete too many steps to checkout. When people say yes, they’re thinking emotionally. But when they try to buy, logic will come. And if your checkout flow or subscription process makes them pause even for a second, they might not come back.
What to do:
Audit your purchase or sign-up process. Look for small steps that feel unnecessary or confusing. If you run an online store or take orders digitally, use tools that allow clear, intuitive checkout (with mobile in mind).
Even service businesses( whether selling bouquets or booking consultations) benefit from POS tools that can streamline customer flow without needing custom development.
6. The value didn’t match the price — in their mind
They might agree with you in theory, but when it came down to payment, they didn’t feel like it was worth it for them. That doesn’t mean your offer was overpriced, just that the value wasn’t clearly communicated in a way that resonated. People don’t buy features, they buy outcomes. So, if those outcomes are not obvious to them, your pricing will always feel high, even if it’s not.
What to do:
Focus less on what the product is and more on what it does for that specific customer. Use examples or quick before-and-after stories that will show transformation. Let them picture themselves with the result. Also, consider offering flexible pricing (even if it’s temporary) to meet them where they are.
Related: Forget Selling. Here’s How to Spark Relationships Your Customers Won’t Walk Away From
7. They got distracted — and didn’t come back
Modern customers are distracted. They’re scrolling during meetings, browsing tabs between errands and half-reading product pages while standing in line at the grocery store. Even with the best intentions to buy, their attention is fragile. One notification or interruption, and your offer can fade into the noise. They may have been 90% there and then forgot entirely.
What to do:
Don’t assume a lost sale means disinterest. You can use light, timed follow-ups like abandoned cart emails, reminder messages or even a friendly “Hey, still interested?” nudge.
Also, make re-entry easy. If they do return, don’t force them to start over. Keep their cart, save their last viewed items and reduce the steps they need to take to finish what they started.
There’s still a lot that can derail a buying decision between agreement and action. The trick is to build systems, messaging and good follow-up strategies that carry people over that final stretch. Good luck!
You have had a promising conversation with your customer. They nodded, said they liked your offer, maybe even said, “Yes, sounds good.” But then there was no follow-up, no payment from that customer and you see zero sales.
If this has happened more than a few times, you’re not alone. According to a HubSpot study, 60% of customers say “yes” or show interest during a sales process but end up ghosting before the transaction is completed, at least four times before they buy. So what gives?
In business, the gap between “yes” and “checkout” is where most opportunities quietly die. It’s not just a sales problem. It’s a clarity problem, a trust problem and sometimes just bad timing. Let’s break down some most common reasons people agree with your pitch but still walk away and what you can do to close the loop.
The rest of this article is locked.
Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.
This story originally appeared on Entrepreneur
Charles Bierbauer, longtime CNN correspondent, dead at 83
Charles Bierbauer, former CNN correspondent and a past president of the White House Correspondents Association who later became dean of the University of South Carolina’s journalism program, has died. He was 83.
Bierbauer died Friday at his home in Spruce Pine, NC, where he had been living in retirement, according to university spokesman Jeff Stensland. No direct cause was given, but the family’s obituary said “his generous heart gave out after a good, long life.”
Bierbauer’s journalism career began in his native Pennsylvania, where early on he was a weekend reporter for media outlet WKAP.
After a year as a reporter for The Associated Press in Pittsburgh, Bierbauer worked for several other outlets, winning an Overseas Press Club Award in 1973 for his reporting on the Yom Kippur War.
According to his family, Bierbauer was once detained in Moscow’s Red Square while filming an anti-Soviet demonstration. While covering Muhammed Ali’s 1978 travels in the Soviet Union, Bierbauer was denounced by the Soviet press for “asking impertinent questions.”
After four years with ABC News, Bierbauer began two decades at CNN, starting just a year after the network’s inception.
Over the next 20 years, Bierbauer would cover the Pentagon, White House, the US Supreme Court and an array of political stories and presidential campaigns. He also hosted the weekly current events show “Newsmaker Saturday” for a decade and regularly traveled with presidents across the country and to dozens of foreign nations.
Afterward, Bierbauer moved to South Carolina, where he became the first dean of the state flagship university’s College of Information and Communications, a merger of the mass communications and library science programs. Launching Cocky’s Reading Express, a childhood literacy initiative, Bierbauer also led a multimillion-dollar fundraising and renovation effort that moved the school from the outdated Carolina Coliseum to a state-of-the-art building on South Carolina’s historic Horseshoe.
While in academia, Bierbauer continued his passion for broadcasting by hosting a weekly current events program and moderating scores of debates among political candidates vying for offices in the state, through a partnership with SCETV.
Jay Bender, a former attorney for the South Carolina Press Association and retired professor who served under Bierbauer, remembered him as a distinguished broadcaster and educator.
“His contributions to the USC Journalism School as dean were significant,” Bender said, specifically mentioning the project that modernized the school and moved it to its current location.
Tom Reichert, who succeeded Bierbauer as communications dean, echoed Bender’s sentiments, recalling his predecessor’s “profound impact on the program.”
“He is fondly remembered for many achievements, including fundraising and supporting students who went on to win Pulitzer Prizes,” Reichert said in a statement to The Associated Press. “He will be deeply missed.”
Bierbauer was married to Susanne Schafer, a longtime military affairs reporter for the AP. He earned degrees in journalism and Russian from Penn State University and is survived by Schafer, as well as four children and several grandchildren and a great-grandchild.
In a statement to the AP, a network spokesperson remembered Bierbauer as “a cherished member of the CNN family” and “tireless reporter and wonderful colleague.”
“Charles inspired me and helped me throughout my assignments at the Pentagon and the White House,” Wolf Blitzer, Bierbauer’s former CNN colleague, told the AP in a statement. “He was a good friend, colleague, and mentor, and I will certainly miss him.”
This story originally appeared on NYPost
Marijuana’s federal legal status needs to change — but not to the free-for-all advocates crave
President Trump has signaled he’s considering correcting a 50-year mistake in US drug laws: Marijuana is in the same category as heroin and LSD.
A change in pot’s legal status at the federal level is overdue: Trump would be right to downgrade cannabis from Schedule I, defined as drugs with no accepted medical use and a high abuse potential, to Schedule III, where it would join ketamine, certain barbiturates and some opioid-like meds.
The original classification was not evidence-based but Nixon-era political payback. But what is at stake is much more than simply to which drug-control schedule cannabis should be moved.
Trump faces a new reality: Cannabis in 2025 is fundamentally different and much more powerful than the one Richard Nixon politicized in the 1970s.
It means the president must calculate how to change the federal classification for marijuana while not giving a green light for the free-for-all some legalization advocates envision.
Part of the problem is why weed ended up on Schedule I in the first place.
President Nixon, who had campaigned on restoring “law and order,” created the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse to give him cover for a hard-line stance.
When the panel — chaired by former Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer — returned in 1972 with a report urging decriminalization for personal use, Nixon was livid.
He shelved the findings and doubled down on the punitive approach, a decision more about punishing perceived political opponents and appealing to his conservative base than protecting public health.
In the five decades since, reform advocates have pointed to that history as proof the federal classification is irrational and outdated.
They note alcohol and tobacco, both with well-documented health risks, remain legal.
They also point to the 38 states that have legalized marijuana for medical use and 24 that allow recreational sales.
But this is not the 1970s cannabis the Shafer Commission considered relatively mild and socially manageable.
The marijuana sold today is dramatically different — and far more potent.
Back then, the average THC content — the psychoactive compound that produces marijuana’s high — was less than 2%.
Today, marijuana flower averages 15% to 20% THC, while extracts, oils and edibles can exceed 80% to 90%.
This isn’t a stronger beer or a bolder wine; it’s more like swapping a glass of table wine for a shot of pure grain alcohol.
That surge in potency has real consequences.
Emergency-room visits linked to marijuana have spiked in states where it’s been legalized.
Physicians report more cases of cannabis-induced psychosis, sometimes in patients with no prior history of mental illness.
A 2022 National Institutes of Health-funded study found that high-potency cannabis was associated with a fivefold increase in young men’s risk of developing schizophrenia.
Other studies have tied heavy use to cognitive decline, impaired memory and lower academic and occupational achievement — particularly when use starts in adolescence.
While legalization advocates often cite the harmless image of a baby boomer smoking the occasional joint, today’s market caters to heavy users consuming extremely high doses.
The public-health debate isn’t about that occasional puff. It’s about the normalization of high-potency marijuana that can hook users, impair judgment and — in a growing subset — trigger psychiatric crises.
The sensible path is what President Trump reportedly favors, reclassifying marijuana to a lower schedule. That acknowledges it does have accepted medical uses — from easing chemotherapy-induced nausea to controlling certain seizure disorders — and would remove some of the research barriers Schedule I imposes.
Because marijuana is in the same category as heroin, scientists must navigate a maze of federal approvals to study it, stifling the very research needed to set evidence-based policy.
But reclassification should not be mistaken for a stamp of approval to legalize recreational marijuana federally.
The stakes are different now. The industry is already racing ahead of regulators, pushing products of unprecedented strength, marketing aggressively to young people and — as Big Tobacco once did — downplaying risks.
President Trump, however, has the bully pulpit and should take a page from the federal government’s playbook on tobacco control.
Keep strict federal prohibitions on recreational marijuana sales, especially for high-potency products. Invest in public education campaigns that tell the truth about health risks, particularly for teens and young adults. Fund treatment programs for those already struggling with dependency or psychiatric complications.
And give the Food and Drug Administration the resources to regulate potency, labeling and marketing where states have failed.
None of this will satisfy the two loudest voices in the marijuana debate.
Legalization activists will decry it as prohibitionist overreach.
Hard-liners will resist any move that even hints at loosening the Schedule I label. But good drug policy doesn’t live at either extreme.
When Nixon rejected his own commission’s recommendations in 1972, he wasn’t thinking about science, public health or the long-term consequences of setting marijuana policy by political whim.
We have the benefit — and the burden — of hindsight. Trump can correct the historical wrong of marijuana’s Schedule I classification while confronting the uncomfortable fact that today’s cannabis is not the same drug the Shafer Commission studied.
That means resisting the urge to treat marijuana as just another lifestyle product and instead handling it like what it has become: a powerful psychoactive substance whose risks are still not fully understood.
Reclassification is overdue. Federal legalization is not.
Gerald Posner is the author of 13 books, most recently “PHARMA: Greed, Lies and the Poisoning of America.”
This story originally appeared on NYPost
Donald Trump Spends Labor Day Planning To Harm Millions Of Workers
Please support PoliticusUSA on this Labor Day by becoming a subscriber.
In the video above, I go into more detail about Trump’s plans to harm America’s workers. Please give it a watch.
Donald Trump was born rich. Donald Trump has never worked a day in his life for someone who did not have the last name of Trump. The current president is the most detached person from the real-life experience of working people to occupy the Oval Office in modern history.
Trump also holds workers in the highest contempt, and as president, his agenda in both of his terms has been stridently anti-worker, not just anti-union, but anti-worker. Trump harms workers whether they belong to a union or not.
The Trump administration will roll out 60 rule changes after Labor Day, which will be devastating for millions of American workers.
Trump will end overtime and minimum wage protections for 3.7 million home healthcare workers. The Obama administration closed a loophole in the Fair Labor Standards Act that had denied home healthcare workers the minimum wage and overtime protections. Trump will be reversing that rule, with the deadline for public comment at the Department of Labor being September 2.
The Biden administration submitted a draft rule to the Department of Labor that would have nationally ended the ability of corporations to seek a waiver to pay disabled workers less than minimum wage. Trump is reversing that rule, and the result will be that some workers with disabilities may earn as little as $4/hour.
The Trump administration also plans to weaken mine safety standards and construction workplace safety standards. Trump also intends to weaken workplace safety inspections and penalties for violations.
One mistake that Democrats often make is limiting conversations about workers and their rights to unions. Private sector unionization declined to 5.9% in 2024. When Democrats limit the conversation about workers’ rights to the ability to join a union, they are ignoring the nearly 94% of workers who aren’t unionized.
Worker rights are more than union rights. All workers should have a minimum wage and safe workplaces. Democrats need to expand their conversation to connect issues that matter to all working people, such as better wages, improved access to healthcare, lower health insurance costs, and the protection and expansion of Social Security under the umbrella of the fundamental rights of every American worker, whether they are union or not.
These are issues that matter to every worker. Trump’s assault on workers isn’t limited to unions. Trump is a threat to the wages and workplace safety of workers, both union and non-union.
Having a pro-worker president matters. Americans are about to discover how vital it is in the days ahead.
What do you think about Trump attacking worker rights on Labor Day? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
This story originally appeared on Politicususa
Leaker battle: iPhone Fold will not get under-screen Touch ID
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo says that claims the forthcoming iPhone Fold will use under-screen Touch ID are wrong.
Render of a possible iPhone Fold – image Credit: AppleInsider
The necessary thinness of the iPhone Fold has already made it seem unlikely that it will include Face ID, though Ming-Chi Kuo does not go so far as to say it cannot happen. He now, though, doubles down on saying that the iPhone Fold will not have under-screen Touch ID.
Specifically, Kuo writes in his blog that Touch ID will be used on the iPhone through the side button. Apple introduced this side-button Touch ID in 2020 on the iPad Air 4, at the time calling it an “incredible feat of engineering.”
Rumor Score: 🤔 Possible
Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
This story originally appeared on Appleinsider
Trump plans a hefty tax on imported drugs, risking higher prices and shortages
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has plastered tariffs on products from almost every country on earth. He’s targeted specific imports including autos, steel and aluminum.
But he isn’t done yet.
Trump has promised to impose hefty import taxes on pharmaceuticals, a category of products he’s largely spared in his trade war. For decades, in fact, imported medicine has mostly been allowed to enter the United States duty free.
That’s starting to change. U.S. and European leaders recently detailed a trade deal that includes a 15% tariff rate on some European goods brought into the United States, including pharmaceuticals. Trump is threatening duties of 200% more on drugs made elsewhere.
“Shock and awe’’ is how Maytee Pereira of the tax and consulting firm PwC describes Trump’s plans for drugmakers. “This is an industry that’s going from zero (tariffs) to the potentiality of 200%.’’
Trump has promised Americans he’ll lower their drug costs. But imposing stiff pharmaceutical tariffs risks the opposite and could disrupt complex supply chains, drive cheap foreign-made generic drugs out of the U.S. market and create shortages.
“A tariff would hurt consumers most of all, as they would feel the inflationary effect … directly when paying for prescriptions at the pharmacy and indirectly through higher insurance premiums,’’ Diederik Stadig, a healthcare economist with the financial services firm ING, wrote in a commentary last month, adding that lower-income households and the elderly would feel the greatest impact.
The threat comes as Trump also pressures drugmakers to lower prices in the United States. He recently sent letters to several companies telling them to develop a plan to start offering so-called most-favored nation pricing here.
But Trump has said he’d delay the tariffs for a year or a year and a half, giving companies a chance to stockpile medicine and shift manufacturing to the United States — something some have already begun to do.
Leerink Partners analyst David Risinger said in a July 29 note that most drugmakers have already increased drug product imports and may carry between six and 18 months of inventory in the U.S.
Jefferies analyst David Windley said in a recent research note that tariffs that don’t kick in until the back half of 2026 may not be felt until 2027 or 2028 due to stockpiling.
Moreover, many analysts suspect Trump will settle for a tariff far lower than 200%. They also are waiting to see whether any tariff policy includes an exemption for certain products like low-margin generic drugs.
Still, Stadig says, even a 25% levy would gradually raise U.S. drug prices by 10% to 14% as the stockpiles dwindle.
In recent decades, drugmakers have moved many operations overseas – to take advantage of lower costs in China and India and tax breaks in Ireland and Switzerland. As a result, the U.S. trade deficit in medicinal and pharmaceutical products is big — nearly $150 billion last year.
The COVID-19 experience – when countries were desperate to hang onto their own medicine and medical supplies — underscored the dangers of relying on foreign countries in a crisis, especially when a key supplier is America’s geopolitical rival China.
In April, the administration started investigating how importing drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients affects national security. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits the president to order tariffs for the sake of national security.
Marta Wosińska, a health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, says there is a role for tariffs in securing U.S. medical supplies. The Biden administration, she noted, successfully taxed foreign syringes when cheap Chinese imports threatened to drive U.S. producers out of business.
Trump has bigger ideas: He wants to bring pharmaceutical factories back to the United States, noting that U.S.-made drugs won’t face his tariffs.
Drugmakers are already investing in the United States.
The Swiss drugmaker Roche said in April that it will invest $50 billion in expanding its U.S. operations. Johnson & Johnson will spend $55 billion within the United States in the next four years. CEO Joaquin Duato said recently that the company aims to supply drugs for the U.S. market entirely from sites located there.
But building a pharmaceutical factory in the United States from scratch is expensive and can take several years.
And building in the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily protect a drugmaker from Trump’s tariffs, not if the taxes applied to imported ingredients used in the medicine. Jacob Jensen, trade policy analyst at the right-leaning American Action Forum, notes that “97% of antibiotics, 92% of antivirals and 83% of the most popular generic drugs contain at least one active ingredient that is manufactured abroad.’’
“The only way to truly protect yourself from the tariffs would be to build the supply chain end to end in the United States,’’ Pereira said.
Brand-name drug companies have fat profit margins that provide flexibility to make investments and absorb costs as Trump’s tariffs begin. Generic drug manufacturers do not.
Some may decide to leave the U.S. market rather than pay tariffs. That could prove disruptive: Generics account for 92% of U.S. retail and mail-order pharmacy prescriptions.
A production pause at a factory in India a couple years ago led to a chemotherapy shortage that disrupted cancer care. “Those are not very resilient markets,” Brookings’ Wosińska said. “If there’s a shock, it’s hard for them to recover.”
She argues that tariffs alone are unlikely to persuade generic drug manufacturers to build U.S. factories: They’d probably need government financing.
“In an ideal world, we would be making everything that’s important only in the U.S.,’’ Wosińska said. “But it costs a lot of money … We have offshored so much of our supply chains because we want to have inexpensive drugs. If we want to reverse this, we would really have to redesign our system … How much are we willing to spend?”
___
Murphy reported from Indianapolis. AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone contributed to this report.
This story originally appeared on Fortune
Down 20% in 2 months! Will the Greggs share price recover?
Image source: Getty Images
On 2 July, the Greggs (LSE:GRG) share price crashed 15% as investors took a dislike to the pie and sausage roll maker’s latest trading update. Since then, it’s been in slow decline. At the time of writing (1 September), the stock’s changing hands for 20% less than at the start of July. Its market cap is now half what it was in August 2024.
To assess the investment case, I’m going to consider how the baker’s performing against the four key drivers of growth that it’s identified for itself.
1. Growing the estate
Greggs is certainly not hanging about when it comes to opening new shops. After all, more sites equals higher revenue.
On 2 January 2021, it operated 2,078 stores. By 28 June 2025, this had increased by 27% to 2,649. The group has plans to grow this to “significantly more” than 3,000. However, a timescale has not been specified.
2. Extended trading
With so many stores up and down the country, I suspect the best locations already have a Greggs.
However, by opening new premises in places that permit evening trading, it’s possible to attract customers who might not otherwise be able to enjoy its food and drink offering.
3. Digital channels
Greggs makes its products available via Just East and Uber Eats.
During the six months ended 30 June 2025 (H1 25), digital sales accounted for 6.8% of company-managed shop revenue. This was marginally higher than for the same period in 2024 (6.7%).
4. Broadening customer appeal and driving loyalty
Via the group’s app and through social media, the baker intends to widen its appeal. And it seems to be doing quite well here. It’s currently number 8 in the Food and Drink category of Apple’s free app store.
So what’s the problem?
But a growing top line — total sales were up 7% in H1 25 — isn’t translating into improved earnings.
Operating profit was 7.1% lower and pre-tax earnings fell 14.3% compared to H1 24. Some of this was due to the timing of costs but “challenging” market conditions and weather disruption were also to blame. Operating profit in 2025 is now expected to be “modestly below” that achieved in 2024.
And although like-for-like sales increased 2.6% during the quarter, the rate of growth was slower compared to the same quarter in 2024. For Greggs, that’s a problem. Momentum is so important in helping maintain positive investor sentiment. When growth slows, some will look elsewhere. Also, with 100% exposure to the UK, investors might be worried that it’s particularly sensitive to a domestic slowdown.
However, one advantage of the falling share price is that the stock’s yield has increased. Based on amounts paid over the past 12 months, it’s now up to 4.3%. Of course, there are no guarantees when it comes to payouts.
But if Greggs can pick up its rate of sales growth once more then I’m sure its share price will respond positively. The stock’s currently trading on 12.7 times its expected earnings for 2025. This is slightly below its three-year average and could imply that the recent sell-off has been overdone.
In my opinion, the group has a strong brand and an impressive growth story. Most importantly, its stores always look busy to me. On balance, I think it’s one to consider.
This story originally appeared on Motley Fool