Source: Council of the European Union
European Council President, António Costa, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will travel to South Africa for the 8th EU-South Africa summit on 13 March 2025. The summit aims to strengthen the EU-South Africa strategic partnership and address key global and regional issues, including geopolitical challenges and bilateral cooperation in trade, security, energy, and innovation.
Source: Council of the European Union
The first EU-Central Asia Summit will take place in Samarkand, Uzbekistan on 3-4 April. The European Council President Costa and the European Commission President von der Leyen will discuss with the leaders of the five Central Asian countries how to intensify bilateral engagement and enhance cooperation between the two regions. They will also address the current geopolitical challenges facing the region, namely Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the ongoing developments in Afghanistan.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
The Environment Agency has boosted the populations of dace, chub and roach in Greater Manchester as 4,000 fish have been released into the River Tame.
Photo shows Luke Theaker, Environment Agency Fisheries Officer, on the left, and Chris Clarke, Chair of the River Tame Anglers, releasing fish into the River Tame.
The fish were released at two locations in the river, near Hyde.
The Fisheries Improvement Programme, which is paid for by rod licence sales, has funded work with the River Tame Anglers to create fish refuges and boost habitat to support fish survival in this area.
Stocking occurs in winter because water temperatures are low and this minimises any stress on the fish, giving them the best possible survival rates.
February is a good time to introduce the fish into rivers, as it enables them to acclimatise to their new surroundings, ahead of their spawning season in the spring.
Fish also play a critical role in sustaining a river’s finely-balanced eco-system, so the wider natural environment will also get a helping hand, as a result of the restocking.
Mark Easedale, Area Environment Manager for the Environment Agency in Greater Manchester, said:
The carefully coordinated releases on the River Tame provides an amazing opportunity to further boost fish numbers and support our local angling clubs.
Our officers work closely with partners across Greater Manchester to protect and enhance local fish populations.
This includes responding to reports of fish in distress, gathering evidence at pollution incidents, protecting or enhancing habitats for fish, improving angling access and addressing barriers to fish migration.
We hope this stocking in the River Tame will encourage even more people to give fishing a go, but before you do go out to the banks, remember it’s important to buy a rod licence, as you could end up with a fine if you don’t.
Photo shows Luke Theaker, Environment Agency Fisheries Officer, on the right, and Chris Clarke, Chair of the River Tame Anglers, releasing fish into the River Tame.
The new recruits to the Tame have all been reared at the Environment Agency’s National Coarse Fish Farm in Calverton, Nottinghamshire.
Every year, the Environment Agency stocks almost half a million fish of nine different species into England’s rivers. Being the principal supply of coarse fish for 32 years, the fish farm plays a crucial role to help improve fisheries around the country.
Fisheries officers use data from national surveys to identify where there are problems with poor breeding, issues with survival rates, or where numbers have been impacted following a pollution incident.
These surveys help the officers ensure that fish are released into the right locations and where the need is greatest as well as supporting angling clubs to boost local fishing spots.
Fisheries Officers inspect rod licences 24/7 throughout the North West, and work continually on cases of illegal fishing and other associated fisheries crime. Fishing illegally can result in a fine of up to £2,500, and offenders can also have their fishing equipment seized.
It’s easy to buy a rod fishing licence online. Get yours here: Buy a rod fishing licence
Illegal fishing and other offences can be reported to the Environment Agency’s Incident Hotline on 0800 807060.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, made a speech outlining her vision for the future of the probation service.
Please note the political content has been removed from this speech.
Today, we are in Southwark, the home of London’s probation service, one of the busiest in the country.
Here in London, the Service supervises more than 36,000 offenders.
And, every day, in this building, there are a thousand untold stories of how our probation service protects the public and makes our streets safer.
I want to talk about the future of our probation service today.
But to look to that future, I think we must first look to the past.
Because it was here, in Southwark, that the probation service first took root.
Over 150 years ago, the Church of England’s temperance movement posted a man called George Nelson to Southwark’s police court.
Nelson was the first of a band of missionaries, driven by their faith and strict teetotalism, who gave up their time to help offenders give up the drink.
Addiction then, as addiction now, drove much criminal behaviour…
And the approach worked.
In fact, it worked so well that the courts came to rely on missionaries like Nelson.
A system soon developed where offenders would be released on the condition that they kept in touch with these volunteers.
Because what began as a moral cause proved to have a practical purpose:
These missionaries led to less crime and fewer victims.
As this Government might say: they made our streets safer.
By the early twentieth century, this voluntary service was so greatly valued that it was placed on a statutory footing.
The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act established the first formal structure for probation…
And the volunteers became professionals.
In the years that followed, the service grew:
The 1925 Criminal Justice Act paid probation officers a regular wage.
By the 1950s, probation’s work expanded to offenders on parole.
And by the 1980s, the service was focused increasingly on prison releases.
Over time, the role developed.
Where the early missionaries were focused on crimes driven by addiction…
In time, they took responsibility for the management of ever more, and ever more complex, offenders.
Too often overlooked, with our focus invariably falling on the police or on prisons…
Probation became an indispensable part of a criminal justice system that keeps us safe.
It remains so today, now a service that is more than 20,000 strong…
And probation officers supervise almost a quarter of a million offenders – around three times the number currently serving time in our prisons.
Each year, they oversee more than 4 million hours of community payback.
They monitor around 9,000 offenders on a tag at any given moment.
They provide sentencing advice to hundreds of courts every single day.
And they also provide a vital link to tens of thousands of victims, through the Victim Contact and the Victim Notification schemes.
But while there have been bright moments in the service’s past, we must acknowledge the dark days too.
In 2014 the service was split:
Part remained in the public sector, managing the highest-risk offenders.
The rest was hived off, to be run by the private sector, who would supervise those of low and medium risk.
Community Rehabilitation Companies would bring the ingenuity of the private sector to solve the problem of reoffending.
The rhetoric was of a revolution in how we manage offenders.
The reality was far different.
Workloads increased, as new offenders were brought under supervision for the first time…
The number of people on probation increased between December 2014 and December 2016, with almost 50,000 offenders newly under its remit.
Scarce resources were stretched further than ever…
Morale plummeted.
And worrying numbers voted with their feet, leaving the service altogether…
With the Inspector of Probation declaring a “national shortage” of probation professionals in 2019.
The new companies woefully underperformed.
Between 2017 and 2018, just 5 of 37 audits carried out by HMPPS demonstrated that expected standards were being met.
In 2019, 8 out of 10 companies inspected received the lowest possible rating – “inadequate” – for supervising offenders.
The Chief Inspector called them “irredeemably flawed”.
And the service was labelled ‘inadequate’.
In 2021, it was finally, rightly, re-unified and re-nationalised.
Now, make no mistake…
Every day, across the country, probation staff make this country safer.
This was clearly evident in the service’s response to the prison capacity crisis.
With prisons just days from collapse, this Government was forced to introduce an emergency release programme, which saw some offenders leave prison a few weeks or months early.
The alternative, as I said at the time, did not bear thinking about:
We would have been forced to shut the front door of our prisons…
An act that would have sent dominoes tumbling through our justice system:
Courts unable to hold trials…
Police forced to halt arrests…
And the eventual path to a total breakdown of law and order.
In making that decision, I knew the probation service would have to carry an even heavier load.
They would have to put in place plans for the safe release of prisoners in just a few weeks.
I tried to give them as much time as I possibly could to prepare:
An eight-week implementation period.
It wasn’t long to prepare, but the probation service used it with great skill.
But now is also a moment to be honest about the challenges the service faces.
And the simple fact is this:
The service was burdened with a workload that was, quite simply, impossible.
When we took office, we discovered that orders handed out by courts were not taking place.
In the 3 years to March 2024 around 13,000 Accredited Programmes, a type of rehabilitative course, did not happen.
This wasn’t because an offender had failed to do what was expected of them…
But instead because the Probation Service had been unable to deliver these courses.
As I have shown already in this job, I believe in confronting problems, not pretending they are not there.
And so, we will ensure only those offenders who pose a higher risk, and who need to receive these courses, will do so.
This isn’t a decision I take lightly.
But it is a decision to confront the reality of the challenges facing the probation service.
I should be clear:
For those who will not complete an accredited programme, they remain under the supervision of a probation officer…
And all the other requirements placed upon them will remain in place.
Any breach of a community sentence could see them hauled back into court.
Any breach of a licence condition could see them back behind bars.
Addressing individual issues like these, however, is no long-term solution to the challenges the probation service faces.
Today, across the country, probation officers are spread too thin – responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle.
Probation officers are drawn to the profession not because it is just another job.
This job is a vocation, even a calling…
They are, after all, the inheritors of those missionaries of 150 years ago.
They are experts in their discipline…
Who want to know that their work is protecting the public…
And keeping offenders on the straight and narrow.
Over-stretched, they can’t work with offenders in the way they need to.
And the burden placed on probation officers’ shoulders grow heavier and heavier.
It has driven people away from the job…
It has made the public less safe…
And it has to change.
It is clear we need to bring more people into the probation service.
In July, I committed to bringing on 1,000 trainee probation officers by March of this year.
But we must go further.
Today, I can announce that, next year, we will bring on at least 1,300 new, trainee probation officers.
New probation officers are the lifeblood of the service, and they will guarantee its future.
But they are not enough alone.
It is also clear we must remove the administrative burden that weighs probation officers down…
And makes them less effective in their roles.
Today, too many hours of probation officer time are wasted each day.
They are drowning in paperwork.
And I don’t mean metaphorical paperwork.
I mean literal pen and paperwork.
This takes up valuable time, that would be better spent working with offenders…
And it also introduces the risk of error – the failure to identify the critical piece of information that might shape a professional’s judgement of the risk that an offender poses.
Where digital processes do exist in the probation service, they can be difficult to navigate.
Information is stored in multiple different systems that do not speak to each other.
And probation officers are forced, laboriously, to type the same information time and again.
We will soon pilot a digital tool that will put all the information a probation officer needs to know into one place.
Over time, this will include information from other agencies, like the police as we need to make sure data is more readily shared, so that probation can make better decisions.
We’re also trialling a new system for risk assessing offenders, to make it more straightforward for probation officers to make robust decisions.
A group of officers in Brighton started using this in December last year…
And we estimate it will cut up to 20 percent of the time it takes to do this crucial activity.
It might sound simple, but the impact could be considerable.
Every minute saved is more time probation officers can spend working with offenders.
Less simple, but even more transformational, there’s the potential of artificial intelligence.
We are currently looking into voice transcription.
This would automatically record and transcribe supervision conversations by taking notes in real time…
Allowing probation officers to focus on building relationships, while also removing the need for them to enter handwritten notes into a computer afterwards.
In time, we believe that AI could play a more active role in supporting staff to supervise offenders – for example, drawing on the data we have on an offender to suggest a supervision plan tailored to them.
This new technology will ensure probation officers provide what only they can:
The human factor.
The ability to work with an offender, one-to-one, to understand the risk they pose…
To develop a plan for how to manage it…
Ultimately, to turn them away from a life of crime – and so protect the public.
That is what remains true about the probation officer’s job now, just as it was 150 years ago.
The courts didn’t turn to the temperance movement’s missionaries because they were great at paperwork.
They did so because of how they worked with offenders.
They knew – in the words of the Government Minister who brought in the 1907 Probation Act – how “to guide and admonish” an offender to make the public safer.
But while new staff and better technology are necessary to the future of our probation service…
They are not sufficient.
With a caseload of nearly a quarter of a million offenders…
We must also look at the work that probation officers are doing…
And we must ask:
Where should their time be spent…
And, more specifically, who should their time be spent with to have the greatest impact?
In this, it is clear there are two types of offender.
On the one hand, we have those who pose a higher risk to society.
In this group, we have those who are dangerous – posing a real risk of harm to the public.
We also have those whose offending is prolific – the one in every ten offenders who is guilty of nearly half of all sentenced crime.
On the other hand, we have offenders who pose a lower risk.
They are not serial offenders, with a high risk of reoffending.
Their crimes are instead often fuelled by addiction, homelessness, and joblessness.
These crimes are not excusable.
All crimes must be punished.
But these two groups – the higher and lower risk – are different.
If we want to reduce reoffending, cut crime and have safer streets, we have to treat them differently.
And too often today, we don’t.
We have a one size fits all approach.
That must change.
For higher-risk offenders, a probation officer’s time and focus is essential.
It is no exaggeration to say that effective supervision of this cohort can be the difference between life and death.
We all know the tragedies:
I think of Terri Harris, her children John Paul and Lacey Bennett and Lacey’s friend Connie Gent, savagely murdered by Damien Bendall in 2021, when Bendall was serving a community sentence.
And I think of Zara Aleena, murdered by Jordan McSweeney in 2022, just nine days after he had left prison on licence.
We will never be able to stop every tragedy.
But we have to stop more.
There are improvements that we can and must make to the processes probation officers follow, and the technology they use.
We have introduced new training, to better identify risk…
New digital tools, as I have mentioned already, will draw together the critical pieces of information from partner organisations, like the police.
But the vital ingredient is time:
The time of a professional probation officer…
Devoted to identifying the risk an offender poses…
Creating a plan to manage it…
And supervising, closely, that offender to ensure they do not deviate from it.
That is the human factor that only a probation officer can provide.
If probation officers are to have this valuable time with these offenders, we must be more efficient with the time they devote to lower-risk offenders.
At the very end of their time in office, my predecessor introduced a policy called Probation Reset.
This saw supervision of lower-risk offenders end after two-thirds of their licence period.
This was a step in the right direction.
The interventions that work best with lower risk offenders are not necessarily those provided by probation officers.
So that is where we must now direct the attention of their supervision.
We need to get these offenders off drugs and booze – reoffending rates are 19 points lower when an offender completes a drug treatment programme.
We need to ensure they have a roof over their heads – reoffending rates double for those released homeless.
And finally, we need to get them working – reoffending rates are up to 9 points lower when an offender is employed.
The probation service has a role to play here…
But their unique value is in referring offenders to the intervention that is required to address the cause of their offending.
And so today, I can announce that we will build on the work of Reset.
This Government will focus the probation service on the interventions that have the greater impact.
For lower risk offenders, we will task probation officers with providing a swifter intervention.
They will spend more time with an offender immediately after their release:
First, assessing the root causes of an offender’s crime…
Then referring them to the services that will address that behaviour:
Which could be education, training, drug treatment or accommodation…
Delivered by the probation service, our partners across Government, and through the brilliant work done by the voluntary sector.
Once offenders are following that direction, as long as the offender stays on the straight and narrow, we must then focus probation officer’s time more effectively:
That means more time spent with the offenders who pose the greater risk…
More time with offenders who pose a risk of a serious and violent further offence…
And more time with offenders whose prolific offending causes so much social and economic damage to local communities.
That is how we will reduce reoffending…
That is how we will cut crime…
And that is how we will make our streets safer.
These measures are necessary today, but they will be even more important in the months and years to come.
David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing will report soon.
He has been asked to ensure we never run out of prison places again.
There is no doubt that this will increase pressure on probation.
As I made clear when I announced the review, I have asked David to consider how we make more use of punishment outside of prison.
In my view, technology is likely to play a key role – taking advantage of advances in the tech that is being used here and in other jurisdictions:
Like sobriety tags, which can measure the alcohol levels in offenders’ sweat every 30 minutes, and have a 97 percent compliance rate…
And GPS tags, which can put in place exclusion zones to alert authorities if offenders enter areas we have banned them from.
There are also likely to be more sentences served in the community…
And more drug, alcohol and mental health treatment requirements placed on offenders.
These are the tools that must be at the judiciary’s disposal to deal with criminals…
And judges must have trust and confidence that the probation service can deliver them.
The changes I have announced today are about support for the probation service:
1,300 new trainee probation officers…
New technology to lighten the administrative burden…
And a new focus of their time on where it has the greatest impact.
Today, I have set out what I think the future direction of the probation service must be.
And I think we must, finally, consider the alternative.
What would happen if we allowed probation to carry on as it is?
What would happen if we allowed the service to be stretched so thin, trying to do too much with too many offenders…
Too much time spent doing the wrong things, and not enough time doing what is right and what works.
We know what the consequences would be.
We’ve seen it in the stories of far too many victims…
And the pain their friends and families have experienced – and continue to experience – every single day.
When the probation service isn’t able to properly assess the risk of offenders or supervise them…
Innocent people pay a terrible price.
The first job of the state is to keep its people safe.
We are willing to take the difficult decisions, where they must be taken.
I will support probation officers, both the new recruits we will bring in and the professionals of whom we have asked so much in recent years.
While they are professionals these days, and experts in their field…
They are drawn to the profession by the same desire that called to those missionaries a hundred and fifty years ago:
To encourage offenders to turn their backs on crime…
And to make our streets and the public safer.
To fulfil that purpose now, we must do things differently.
And that begins today.
Thank you.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Nations MIL OSI b
SG/SM/22551
Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ statement on the death of a World Food Programme (WFP) staff member in detention in Yemen:
I strongly condemn the death in detention on 10 February of a World Food Programme colleague who had been arbitrarily detained by the Houthi de facto authorities since 23 January 2025.
I extend my deepest condolences to his family and WFP colleagues and stand in solidarity with all detained colleagues and their families.
The circumstances surrounding this deplorable tragedy remain unclear, and the United Nations is urgently seeking explanations from the Houthi de facto authorities. I call for an immediate, transparent and thorough investigation and for those responsible to be held accountable.
Dozens of personnel from the United Nations, national and international non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, and diplomatic missions continue to be detained, some of whom for several years. I renew my call for their immediate and unconditional release. The United Nations continues to follow this situation closely and will continue to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of our staff in their efforts to deliver for the people of Yemen.
For information media. Not an official record.
Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
HARTFORD, Conn. — U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced on Feb. 7 the return of $328,573 to the victim of a computer support scam as the result of an ICE HSI cybercrime investigation.
According to the complaint (3:24cv840), in February 2024, an elderly woman was tricked by a scammer who mimicked Microsoft customer support. The victim transferred approximately $550,000 to the scammers in two wire transfers. Within two days of the transfers, the victim and a family member reported the incident to the Simsbury Police Department, who then partnered with HSI to investigate the crime. Fortunately, one of the wire transfers, in the amount of $221,000, was reversed by the bank and returned to the victim. ICE HSI special agents traced the remaining money, totaling approximately $328,573, and seized it. The U.S. Attorney’s Office then filed a civil asset forfeiture action to forfeit the money to the government, and HSI special agents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office then worked with the Department of Justice’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section to return the money to the victim on Feb. 4, 2025.
“Cyber scams run by foreign malign actors are becoming more common and more sophisticated every day,” said ICE HSI New England Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Krol. “The victim in this case contacted authorities quickly resulting in the recovery of most of her money by the bank and by HSI — a best case scenario and rare result. It is essential for victims of these kinds of cybercrimes to come forward as soon as possible. We want the public to know that help is available and to reach out immediately if they’ve been victimized by international scammers.”
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to helping victims of crime, and civil asset forfeiture is a powerful tool that allows the government to return money to victims of fraud schemes,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Silverman. “As we continue to pursue criminal prosecution of the individuals responsible for this and other computer crimes, it is equally important to ensure that the government uses all of its tools to minimize, and in this case, undo, the financial impact these crimes have on victims. This case represents the best case scenario, where nearly every dollar taken from the victim was returned to her. While it can be difficult to come forward and admit that you have been victimized by online scammers, know that federal law enforcement and our state and local partners stand ready to help you to the fullest extent possible.”
This case was investigated by ICE HSI New England’s Hartford Resident Agent in Charge office. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder fraud, call the HSI Tip Line at 877-4-HSI-TIP or the National Elder Fraud Hotline at 833-FRAUD-11.
Follow us on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @HSINewEngland to learn more about HSI’s global missions and operations.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Nicky Falkof, Professor, University of the Witwatersrand
American president Donald Trump has issued an executive order to withdraw aid from South Africa. He was reacting to what he has called the South African government’s plan to “seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation”. Afrikaners are an ethnic and linguistic community of white South Africans whose home language is Afrikaans.
Trump’s outrage is based on a misinterpretation of a new law – the Expropriation Act which came into effect in January 2025.
Trump’s action, amplified by provocative comments from billionaire Elon Musk, has reignited debate about the concept of “white victimhood”. We asked Nicky Falkof, who has researched the idea of white victimhood, for her insights.
White victimhood refers to a powerful set of beliefs that treats white people as special and different, but also as uniquely at risk. Within this narrative white people see themselves, and are sometimes seen by others, as extraordinary victims, whose exposure to violence or vulnerability is more concerning and important than anyone else’s.
White victimhood is usually speculative. It relates not to actual events that have happened, but to white people’s feelings of being threatened or unsafe. Entire political agendas develop around the idea that white people must be protected because they face exceptional threats, which are not being taken seriously by a contemporary world order that fails to value whiteness.
This is by no means particular to South Africa; we see it wherever whiteness is predominant. Indeed, ideas about white victimhood play a significant role in the popularity of Trump, whose call to “make America great again” harks back to an idealised past where white people (particularly men) could easily dominate the nation, the workplace and the home.
Read more:
Donald Trump, white victimhood and the South African far-right
The South African case is important because it plays a central role in global white supremacist claims. These mythologies claim that white South Africans, specifically Afrikaners, are the canary in the coalmine: that the alleged oppression they are facing is a blueprint for what will happen to all white people if they don’t “fight back”.
We can trace this idea back to the start of the colonial project. In 1660 Dutch East India Company administrator Jan van Riebeeck planted a hedge of bitter almond shrubs to separate his trading station from the rest of South Africa’s Cape. This hedge was part of a defensive barrier intended to keep indigenous people out of the Dutch trading post, which had been built on top of ancient Khoikhoi grazing routes.
On a practical level, van Riebeeck’s hedge was meant to shield Dutch settlers and livestock from Khoikhoi raiders. On a philosophical level, the hedge situated the invaders as the “real” victims, who desperately needed protection from the violence and wildness of Africa. The bitter almond hedge is still seen as an enduring symbol of white supremacy in the country.
Read more:
Racism in South Africa: why the ANC has failed to dismantle patterns of white privilege
This early paranoia and securitisation has had a significant effect on white South African culture and anxiety. White people who can afford to do so barricade themselves in gated communities and boomed-off suburban streets, behind high walls topped with razor wire, on the assumption that they are the primary victims of South Africa’s crime rate.
Ideas about white victimhood have played a role in many of South Africa’s most influential social formations.
The 1930s saw a major panic around “poor whites”, which led to commissions of inquiry, upliftment programmes and other attempts at social engineering. The people and institutions behind these initiatives weren’t concerned about poverty in South Africa in general, even though it was becoming more of a problem as the population urbanised. Their only interest was in poverty among white people, drawing on the assumption that it’s wrong or abnormal for white people to be poor, and that this needed to be urgently remedied.
Read more:
Afrikaner identity in post-apartheid South Africa remains stuck in whiteness
These moves were not simply about philanthropy and offering better life chances to poor people; they were about protecting the boundaries of whiteness. Poor whites were seen as a threat to the establishment because they proved that whiteness wasn’t inherently superior.
More recently, the victimhood narrative has been a central part of the panic around farm murders and claims of “white genocide”, an old idea that has been popularised and spread online.
Rural violence is a huge problem in South Africa that deserves a strong response. But white people are far from its only casualties. Indeed, violent crime affects pretty much everyone in South Africa. When the deaths of white people are explained as part of a targeted genocide undertaken on the basis of race, the message is that they matter more than the deaths of everyone else.
Read more:
Damon Galgut’s Booker-winning novel probes white South Africa and the land issue
Again, this suggests a kind of naturalisation of violence and harm. When terrible things happen to other people they simply happen and are not remarked on. It’s only when white people are affected that they become a pressing issue.
White victimhood, like the racial anxiety it is part of, is not good for white people. It doesn’t keep them safer or help them to live better lives.
That said, it’s been quite effective as a mobilising tool. The apartheid-era National Party was skilled at using white fear for political gain. Its communications constantly played on white fears of the swart gevaar, the “black danger”, which encapsulated the powerful belief that whites were more at risk from black people than vice versa, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, contemporary organisations like the Afrikaner “minority rights” pressure group AfriForum and the Afrikaans trade union Solidarity activate and manipulate white people’s senses of extraordinary victimhood. This drives them further into a defensive position, where everything from farm murders and road name changes to the National Health Insurance bill is designed to attack them personally.
White support for these kinds of organisations and the political positions they espouse, whether overtly or covertly, is at least in part driven by the effective manipulation of white victimhood.
It remains disturbingly powerful. The architecture of white supremacy depends on the idea that white people are extraordinary victims. This is the driving notion beneath the great replacement theory, a far-right conspiracy theory claiming that Jews and non-white foreigners are plotting to “replace” whites. It also underpins violent reactions to the global migration crisis and the rise of populism in the north.
Read more:
What’s behind violence in South Africa: a sociologist’s perspective
I don’t think it’s going too far to say that whiteness as a social construction is intrinsically tied to victimhood. The idea that whiteness actually makes people more rather than less vulnerable is likely to remain a central part of white people’s collective psychic imaginary for some time.
Nicky Falkof receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation.
– ref. Trump and South Africa: what is white victimhood, and how is it linked to white supremacy? – https://theconversation.com/trump-and-south-africa-what-is-white-victimhood-and-how-is-it-linked-to-white-supremacy-249648
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Yolaine Frossard de Saugy, PhD Candidate, International Relations, McGill University
With the endless stream of announcements, reversals, measures and countermeasures coming from the new administration of United States President Donald Trump, it has become difficult to make sense of what is just noise or opening negotiation offers and what constitutes actual policy change.
Unfortunately, in the case of the global response against HIV/AIDS, it seems the attacks go beyond bluster.
The methods used in the fight against HIV/AIDS have long been disputed, but overall commitment to the response was one of the few deeply bipartisan endeavours left, until now. Undercutting this decades-long consensus would mean endangering millions of lives.
As a PhD candidate in international relations working on the politics of the response to HIV/AIDS, I am very aware of the central role that the U.S. has played in building and sustaining a global response to the epidemic in the past 25 years.
The U.S. is the largest provider of funds for HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. It does so mainly through the bilateral President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as well as through its contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Overall U.S. funding for global AIDS reached $7 billion in 2020, 2021 and 2022. PEPFAR alone is estimated to provide treatment to 20 million people.
The U.S. is also a fundamental participant in HIV/AIDS research, including through the work of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as USAID.
All of this involvement has already been dangerously jeopardized by the actions taken by the White House since Trump took office for his second term.
Many activities of the CDC and NIH have been halted. Funding for PEPFAR was caught in the freeze on foreign aid announced in January. Though an exemption was later made and the order has since been blocked by a federal judge, it has already forced recipients of aid to lay off personnel and close clinics and programs in places like Kenya and South Africa.
USAID, the primary implementer of bilateral HIV/AIDS funds, is at risk of being dismantled.
The chaos wrought by these measures has impacted the response to HIV/AIDS in deep ways, even if they may be contested or reversed by the courts and Congress.
The uncertainty in itself is damaging for programs that need reliable funding and long-term planning, not to mention the clinical trials that have been brutally interrupted. What’s more, there are indications the Trump administration and other Republicans have abandoned the longstanding commitment to the response itself, which may lead to irreparable damage.
American involvement in the global response to HIV/AIDS has long been shaped by domestic politics. Most notably, PEPFAR’s first rounds of funding were deeply constrained by the views of George W. Bush’s evangelical constituency, including in its focus on abstinence as prevention and denial of funding for sex workers.
But the overall commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS had enjoyed bipartisan support for over two decades. Even during the first Trump administration, the U.S. maintained its involvement, though this was also due to Congress’s resistance to the White House’s attempts at reducing funding.
There are indications that things might be different this time. Entire pages on HIV/AIDS have disappeared from government websites.
The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think-tank behind the potential blueprint for Trump’s government known as Project 2025, has referred to HIV/AIDS as a lifestyle disease, like tobacco consumption. This language is reminiscent of the 1980s playbook of opponents on AIDS action and negates both the nature of the epidemic and the realities of those who live with the virus, casting doubts on the need to engage meaningfully with the response.
Most ominously, the last reauthorization of PEPFAR in 2024 was limited to one year instead of the customary five, as some Republican representatives sought to end it altogether. This means the entire program is to be re-examined this March with no guarantee of how the debates will unfold, especially in the current climate.
Read more:
As the United States disavows the World Health Organization, Canada must double down on its support
Ultimately most will depend on Congress, including the amount pledged by the U.S. to the Global Fund at its replenishment conference sometime this year.
Its decisions will be the real test of the depth of change on this matter, though everything that has unfolded so far hints at a far-reaching shattering of the consensus. If conservative Republicans maintain their pressure on PEPFAR, the program could be significantly diminished, and it is unlikely that a White House that withdrew from the World Health Organization on day one will act decisively to save it or insist on a sustained contribution to the Global Fund.
The consequences of a U.S. retreat from the global response to HIV/AIDS would be immense.
In the short-term, millions of people would lose access to the treatment they depend on for their survival. In the long term, shrinking American funding would undermine health systems around the world and risk the resurgence of the pandemic and the rise of resistant virus strains.
This would jeopardize 40 years of progress, returning us to a time when AIDS was considered a key security risk and threat to development.
Even if funding is maintained, all of this shows that for the next few years the U.S. is unlikely to be reliable. This means others will have to take up the leadership to ensure the worst-case scenario is avoided.
Among these, Canada could have a crucial role to play. It has long been a key entity in its own right — the seventh largest contributor to the Global Fund — though Ottawa has remained discreet in this area so far. Washington’s withdrawal from the field may force it to step into a more visible role and contribute to reframe Canada’s international involvement.
Yolaine Frossard de Saugy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Trump White House’s disengagement from HIV/AIDS response could have lethal consequences – https://theconversation.com/trump-white-houses-disengagement-from-hiv-aids-response-could-have-lethal-consequences-249261
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Nicky Falkof, Professor, University of the Witwatersrand
American president Donald Trump has issued an executive order to withdraw aid from South Africa. He was reacting to what he has called the South African government’s plan to “seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation”. Afrikaners are an ethnic and linguistic community of white South Africans whose home language is Afrikaans.
Trump’s outrage is based on a misinterpretation of a new law – the Expropriation Act which came into effect in January 2025.
Trump’s action, amplified by provocative comments from billionaire Elon Musk, has reignited debate about the concept of “white victimhood”. We asked Nicky Falkof, who has researched the idea of white victimhood, for her insights.
White victimhood refers to a powerful set of beliefs that treats white people as special and different, but also as uniquely at risk. Within this narrative white people see themselves, and are sometimes seen by others, as extraordinary victims, whose exposure to violence or vulnerability is more concerning and important than anyone else’s.
White victimhood is usually speculative. It relates not to actual events that have happened, but to white people’s feelings of being threatened or unsafe. Entire political agendas develop around the idea that white people must be protected because they face exceptional threats, which are not being taken seriously by a contemporary world order that fails to value whiteness.
This is by no means particular to South Africa; we see it wherever whiteness is predominant. Indeed, ideas about white victimhood play a significant role in the popularity of Trump, whose call to “make America great again” harks back to an idealised past where white people (particularly men) could easily dominate the nation, the workplace and the home.
Read more: Donald Trump, white victimhood and the South African far-right
The South African case is important because it plays a central role in global white supremacist claims. These mythologies claim that white South Africans, specifically Afrikaners, are the canary in the coalmine: that the alleged oppression they are facing is a blueprint for what will happen to all white people if they don’t “fight back”.
We can trace this idea back to the start of the colonial project. In 1660 Dutch East India Company administrator Jan van Riebeeck planted a hedge of bitter almond shrubs to separate his trading station from the rest of South Africa’s Cape. This hedge was part of a defensive barrier intended to keep indigenous people out of the Dutch trading post, which had been built on top of ancient Khoikhoi grazing routes.
On a practical level, van Riebeeck’s hedge was meant to shield Dutch settlers and livestock from Khoikhoi raiders. On a philosophical level, the hedge situated the invaders as the “real” victims, who desperately needed protection from the violence and wildness of Africa. The bitter almond hedge is still seen as an enduring symbol of white supremacy in the country.
Read more: Racism in South Africa: why the ANC has failed to dismantle patterns of white privilege
This early paranoia and securitisation has had a significant effect on white South African culture and anxiety. White people who can afford to do so barricade themselves in gated communities and boomed-off suburban streets, behind high walls topped with razor wire, on the assumption that they are the primary victims of South Africa’s crime rate.
Ideas about white victimhood have played a role in many of South Africa’s most influential social formations.
The 1930s saw a major panic around “poor whites”, which led to commissions of inquiry, upliftment programmes and other attempts at social engineering. The people and institutions behind these initiatives weren’t concerned about poverty in South Africa in general, even though it was becoming more of a problem as the population urbanised. Their only interest was in poverty among white people, drawing on the assumption that it’s wrong or abnormal for white people to be poor, and that this needed to be urgently remedied.
Read more: Afrikaner identity in post-apartheid South Africa remains stuck in whiteness
These moves were not simply about philanthropy and offering better life chances to poor people; they were about protecting the boundaries of whiteness. Poor whites were seen as a threat to the establishment because they proved that whiteness wasn’t inherently superior.
More recently, the victimhood narrative has been a central part of the panic around farm murders and claims of “white genocide”, an old idea that has been popularised and spread online.
Rural violence is a huge problem in South Africa that deserves a strong response. But white people are far from its only casualties. Indeed, violent crime affects pretty much everyone in South Africa. When the deaths of white people are explained as part of a targeted genocide undertaken on the basis of race, the message is that they matter more than the deaths of everyone else.
Read more: Damon Galgut’s Booker-winning novel probes white South Africa and the land issue
Again, this suggests a kind of naturalisation of violence and harm. When terrible things happen to other people they simply happen and are not remarked on. It’s only when white people are affected that they become a pressing issue.
White victimhood, like the racial anxiety it is part of, is not good for white people. It doesn’t keep them safer or help them to live better lives.
That said, it’s been quite effective as a mobilising tool. The apartheid-era National Party was skilled at using white fear for political gain. Its communications constantly played on white fears of the swart gevaar, the “black danger”, which encapsulated the powerful belief that whites were more at risk from black people than vice versa, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, contemporary organisations like the Afrikaner “minority rights” pressure group AfriForum and the Afrikaans trade union Solidarity activate and manipulate white people’s senses of extraordinary victimhood. This drives them further into a defensive position, where everything from farm murders and road name changes to the National Health Insurance bill is designed to attack them personally.
White support for these kinds of organisations and the political positions they espouse, whether overtly or covertly, is at least in part driven by the effective manipulation of white victimhood.
It remains disturbingly powerful. The architecture of white supremacy depends on the idea that white people are extraordinary victims. This is the driving notion beneath the great replacement theory, a far-right conspiracy theory claiming that Jews and non-white foreigners are plotting to “replace” whites. It also underpins violent reactions to the global migration crisis and the rise of populism in the north.
Read more: What’s behind violence in South Africa: a sociologist’s perspective
I don’t think it’s going too far to say that whiteness as a social construction is intrinsically tied to victimhood. The idea that whiteness actually makes people more rather than less vulnerable is likely to remain a central part of white people’s collective psychic imaginary for some time.
– Trump and South Africa: what is white victimhood, and how is it linked to white supremacy?
– https://theconversation.com/trump-and-south-africa-what-is-white-victimhood-and-how-is-it-linked-to-white-supremacy-249648
Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister
Working together, Canada and its transatlantic partners have created good-paying jobs for our peoples, strengthened our economies, and advanced progress on key priorities, including climate change and international security. With increasing geopolitical instability and economic disruptions, including proposed U.S. tariffs, it is critical to accelerate these partnerships, now and into the future.
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today concluded a successful visit to Paris, France, and to Brussels, Belgium, where he strengthened Canada’s ties with transatlantic partners and made progress on shared priorities, including artificial intelligence (AI).
In Paris, the Prime Minister participated in the AI Action Summit, co-chaired by France and India, where he engaged with business and policy leaders on how we unlock opportunities and growth for Canadians. As part of our 2025 G7 Presidency, the Prime Minister underlined Canada’s commitment to responsibly power, adopt, and share AI. This includes helping partners access clean and reliable energy to power AI, finding ways to leverage AI and build more reliable energy grids, supporting small and medium-sized businesses’ use of AI to improve their productivity, and sharing the AI revolution with the world so our prosperity remains inclusive.
At the Summit, Prime Minister Trudeau signed a joint Leaders’ Declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI, which reinforces Canada’s approach to AI development and ensures it aligns with human rights, public interest, and environmental protection. The Prime Minister also met with over a dozen CEOs and leading AI business leaders to position Canada as an ideal partner for innovation and investment while helping deepen Canada’s commercial relations with its partners across the U.S. and the European Union (EU).
While in Paris, the Prime Minister also chaired a roundtable on infrastructure and energy requirements for AI and participated in the closing ceremony of a ministerial meeting of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, of which Canada is a founding member.
In Brussels, Prime Minister Trudeau took part in a Canada-EU Leaders’ Meeting with the President of the European Council, António Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The leaders reaffirmed the strong ties between Canada and the EU and discussed the progress made in recent years for the benefit of people on both sides of the Atlantic. This includes a strengthened trade relationship under the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which continues to create significant opportunities for businesses and good-paying jobs for workers in Canada and the EU. They also discussed the imposition of U.S. tariffs as well as Canada and the EU’s responses.
At the meeting, the leaders reaffirmed their commitment to building on the Canada-EU relationship and continuing to deliver results on a range of shared priorities. This includes promoting global economic security and stability, strengthening bilateral and global trade and investment – including in response to expected tariffs by the U.S. – defending the rule of law, advancing defence and security co-operation, and supporting Ukraine. They also discussed developments in the Middle East, including in Gaza and Syria, stressing the importance of an inclusive Syrian-led political governance structure.
While in Brussels, the Prime Minister also met with the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Mark Rutte. He reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to working with NATO Allies to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security and continue supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s unjustifiable war of aggression. He also highlighted Canada’s contributions to NATO’s collective defence efforts across Europe, including through Operation REASSURANCE.
Shared challenges require shared solutions. By working together, we can make the world safer, create good-paying jobs for our peoples, harness the potential of the greatest innovations, and ensure that growth is inclusive. As a leader in AI and a steadfast member of the NATO Alliance, and as part of our G7 Presidency this year, Canada is taking action to create a better, safer, and more prosperous world.
“During my trip to Paris and Brussels, I had one message – if you’re looking for a strong, reliable, and trustworthy partner, Canada is it. We’re advancing progress on AI, strengthening our defence alliances, creating good-paying jobs, and making sure businesses, innovators, and partners choose Canada.”
US Senate News:
Source: The White House
class=”has-text-align-center”>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
1. On January 19, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of aluminum on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (section 232). The Secretary found and advised me of the Secretary’s opinion that aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
2. In Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), I concurred in the Secretary’s finding that aluminum was being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of aluminum articles by imposing a 10 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries. Proclamation 9704 further stated that any country with which the United States has a security relationship is welcome to discuss alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports from that country, and noted that, should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that I determine that imports from that country no longer threaten to impair the national security, I may remove or modify the restriction on aluminum articles imports from that country and, if necessary, adjust the tariff as it applies to other countries, as the national security interests of the United States require.
3. In Proclamation 9704, I also directed the Secretary to monitor imports of aluminum articles and inform me of any circumstances that in the Secretary’s opinion might indicate the need for further action under section 232 with respect to such imports. Pursuant to Proclamation 9704, the Secretary was authorized to provide relief from the additional duties, based on a request from a directly affected party located in the United States, for any aluminum article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality, or based upon specific national security considerations. Proclamation 9776 of August 29, 2018, and Proclamation 9980 of January 24, 2020, similarly authorized the Secretary to provide relief from certain tariffs on other aluminum products and derivatives set forth in those proclamations.
4. In subsequent proclamations, the President adjusted the tariffs applicable to aluminum articles imports from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, the European Union (EU), and the United Kingdom (UK), after engaging in discussions with each of those parties on alternative ways to address the threat to the national security from such imports.
5. The Secretary has informed me that, notwithstanding the 10 percent ad valorem tariff imposed by Proclamation 9704 that mitigated the threatened impairment of our national security, aluminum imports into the United States have continued at unacceptable levels as the global aluminum excess capacity crisis continues. In addition, the exclusion of certain countries and products from the tariff and efforts by foreign producers to circumvent the tariff have undermined the purpose of Proclamation 9704, which was to adjust the level of imports of aluminum to remove the threatened impairment of the national security. This has again resulted in aluminum smelter capacity utilization rates in the domestic aluminum industry that are well below the target level recommended in the Secretary’s January 19, 2018, report. This indicates that the initial tariff of 10 percent ad valorem is not high enough to address the threatened impairment to our national security posed by aluminum imports.
6. In particular, the Secretary has informed me that global primary aluminum capacity has continued to increase, fueled by expansions in the People’s Republic of China (China) and South America, which is seen in rising aluminum imports that continue to weigh on the price domestic aluminum producers may charge. There has also been a significant increase in Chinese investment in Mexico, driven by massive Chinese government subsidies and the continued ability to exploit loopholes in U.S. trade policy.
7. Domestic aluminum producers have been forced to idle additional production and shut down facilities. Two primary aluminum smelters within the United States have closed since Proclamation 9704 was promulgated. In addition, U.S. primary aluminum production decreased by 30 percent from 2020 to 2024, and U.S. smelter capacity utilization was only 52 percent in 2024. Overcapacity for primary aluminum has harmed downstream aluminum producers, including producers of aluminum extrusions and aluminum sheet. To allow U.S. aluminum producers to restart production and to incentivize new capacity, additional adjustments to section 232 tariffs on aluminum need to be made, including limiting exemptions and increasing the tariff rate.
8. The Secretary has informed me that imports of aluminum articles from countries that are excluded from the tariff regime or have alternative arrangements have remained significantly elevated at levels that once again threaten to impair the national security of the United States. The volume of U.S. imports of aluminum articles from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, EU countries, and the UK in 2024 was approximately 14 percent higher than the average volume of such imports in 2015 through 2017. In particular, the volume of U.S. imports of primary aluminum from Canada in 2024 was approximately 18 percent higher than the average volume for 2015 through 2017.
Notwithstanding Proclamation 10782 of July 10, 2024, which imposed higher tariffs on certain aluminum imports from Mexico, imports of aluminum from Mexico have continued to surge beyond historical volumes. The volume of U.S. imports of aluminum articles from Mexico in 2024 was approximately 35 percent higher than the average volume for 2015 through 2017. Proclamation 10782 did not resolve the surge of imports of aluminum from Mexico. Mexican producers are using unfair trade to gain market share in the United States and are leveraging their access to unfairly traded global primary aluminum to do so. I understand that Mexican producers are commingling primary aluminum from China and the Russian Federation (Russia) with primary aluminum from other countries to produce downstream aluminum articles. These practices are distortive and provide continued outlets to absorb the massive amount of global excess capacity and must be remedied. The volume of U.S. imports of primary aluminum from Australia has also surged and in 2024 was approximately 103 percent higher than the average volume for 2015 through 2017. Australia has disregarded its verbal commitment to voluntarily restrain its aluminum exports to a reasonable level.
9. These volume increases occurred even though demand for aluminum in the United States and Canada (the market measured by industry) has generally remained flat, averaging about 20 percent since 2018.
10. These increasing import volumes support the conclusion that aluminum producers in countries subject to the additional ad valorem tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 are engaging in transshipment or further processing of upstream aluminum products in countries that have since been exempted from that tariff. Foreign producers have shifted assembly or manufacturing operations to third countries, such as Mexico. For example, Chinese producers are using Mexico’s general exclusion from the tariff to funnel Chinese aluminum to the United States through Mexico while avoiding the tariff.
11. The Secretary has informed me that producers in countries that remain subject to the ad valorem tariff have continued to evade the tariff by processing covered aluminum articles into additional downstream derivative products that were not included in the additional ad valorem tariffs proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 and Proclamation 9980. Foreign producers are continuing to expand downstream production to absorb the global excess capacity. Imports of additional derivative aluminum products have increased significantly since the issuance of Proclamation 9704 and Proclamation 9980, eroding the domestic industry’s customer base and resulting in depressed demand for aluminum articles produced in the United States.
12. The Secretary has also informed me of the impact of the product exclusion process authorized by Proclamation 9704, Proclamation 9776, and Proclamation 9980 and implemented by subsequent regulations. This process has resulted in exclusions for a significant volume of imports, in a manner that undermines the purpose of the section 232 measures and threatens to impair the national security of the United States. Certain general approved exclusions remain in effect for entire tariff lines of aluminum imports, notwithstanding the domestic industry’s potential to produce many excluded products.
13. I determine that these developments and modifications to the original tariff regime as proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 have undermined the regime’s national security objectives by preventing the domestic aluminum industry (including derivatives) from achieving sustained production capacity utilization of at least 80 percent, as determined in the Secretary’s January 19, 2018, report. I also determine that the modifications failed to achieve their articulated objectives. As a result, I determine that these modifications have resulted in significantly increasing imports of aluminum articles that once again threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
14. In light of the Secretary’s findings, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to adjust the tariff proclaimed by Proclamation 9704, as amended, and the tariff proclaimed by Proclamation 9980, as amended, to increase the tariff rate from 10 percent ad valorem to 25 percent ad valorem. These actions are necessary and appropriate to remove the threatened impairment of the national security of the United States.
15. In light of the Secretary’s findings regarding the alternative agreements with Argentina proclaimed in Proclamation 9758 of May 31, 2018; Australia proclaimed in Proclamation 9758; Canada proclaimed in Proclamation 9893 of May 19, 2019, and Proclamation 10106 of October 27, 2020; Mexico proclaimed in Proclamation 9893 and Proclamation 10782 of July 10, 2024; the European Union proclaimed in Proclamation 10327 of December 27, 2021, and Proclamation 10690 of December 28, 2023; and the United Kingdom proclaimed in Proclamation 10405 of May 31, 2022, I have decided that it is necessary to terminate these agreements as of March 12, 2025. As of March 12, 2025, all imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, EU countries, and the UK shall be subject to the additional ad valorem tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, with respect to aluminum articles and Proclamation 9980, as amended, with respect to derivative aluminum articles. Imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, EU countries, and the UK shall be subject to the revised tariff rate of 25 percent ad valorem established in clause 2 of this proclamation, commensurate with the tariff rate imposed on such articles imported from most other countries. In my judgment, these modifications are necessary to address the significantly increasing imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from these sources, which threaten to impair the national security of the United States. Replacing the alternative agreements with the additional ad valorem tariffs will be a more robust and effective means of ensuring that the objectives articulated in the Secretary’s January 19, 2018, report and subsequent proclamations are achieved.
16. In light of the information provided by the Secretary that the significant increase of imports of certain derivative aluminum articles has depressed demand for aluminum articles produced by domestic aluminum producers, I have determined that it is necessary to adjust the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 and Proclamation 9980 to apply to additional derivative aluminum articles.
17. I have also determined that it is necessary to terminate the product exclusion process as authorized in clause 3 of Proclamation 9704, clause 1 of Proclamation 9776, and clause 2 of Proclamation 9980.
18. Section 232, as amended, authorizes the President to take action to adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives that are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
19. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the President to embody in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) the substance of statutes affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and section 232, do hereby proclaim as follows:
(1) The provisions of Proclamation 9758 with respect to imports of aluminum articles from the Argentina; Proclamation 9758 with respect to imports of aluminum articles from the Australia; Proclamation 9893 and Proclamation 10106 with respect to imports of aluminum articles from Canada; Proclamation 9893 and Proclamation 10782 with respect to imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from Mexico; Proclamation 10327 and Proclamation 10690 with respect to imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from the European Union; and Proclamation 10405 with respect to imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from the United Kingdom shall be ineffective as of 12:01 a.m. eastern time on March 12, 2025. The provisions of clause 1 of Proclamation 9980 as applicable to imports of derivative aluminum articles from Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Mexico shall be ineffective as of 12:01 a.m. eastern time on March 12, 2025; all imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from these countries shall be subject to the additional ad valorem tariffs proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, and Proclamation 9980, as amended. Imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, EU countries, and the United Kingdom will be subject to the revised tariff rate of 25 percent ad valorem established in clauses (2) and (3) of this proclamation, commensurate with the tariff rate imposed on such articles imported from most countries, as amended by this proclamation.
(2) As of 12:01 a.m. on March 12, 2025, the tariff proclaimed by Proclamation 9704, as amended, and the tariff proclaimed by Proclamation 9980, as amended, are adjusted to increase the respective tariff rates from an additional 10 percent ad valorem to an additional 25 percent ad valorem.
(3) Clause 2 of Proclamation 9704, as amended, is further amended in the second sentence by deleting “and” before “(k)”; replacing “11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on December 31, 2025” after (k) with “12:01 a.m. eastern time on March 12, 2025”; and inserting before the period at the end: “, and (l) on or after 12:01 a.m. on March 12, 2025, at a revised rate of an additional 25 percent ad valorem rate, from all countries except from Russia.”
(4) The first two sentences of clause 1 of Proclamation 9980 are revised to read as follows:
(5) Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, all imports of derivative aluminum articles specified in Annex I to this proclamation or any subsequent annex published in the Federal Register pursuant to this Proclamation shall be subject to an additional 25 percent ad valorem rate of duty, with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the Commerce certification date in accordance with clause 9. For any derivative aluminum article identified in Annex I that is not in Chapter 76 of the HTSUS, the additional ad valorem duty shall apply only to the aluminum content of the derivative article. These rates of duty, which are in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such imported derivative aluminum articles, shall apply to imports of derivative aluminum articles described in Annex I to this proclamation from all countries, except Russia, but shall not apply to derivative aluminum articles processed in another country from aluminum articles that were smelted and cast in the United States. Further, all imports of derivative aluminum articles specified in Annex I to this proclamation that are the product of Russia and all imports of derivative aluminum articles specified in Annex I to this proclamation where any amount of primary aluminum used in the manufacture of the derivative aluminum articles is smelted in Russia, or the derivative aluminum articles are cast in Russia, shall be subject to the 200 percent ad valorem rate of duty established in Proclamation 10522, with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the Commerce certification date in accordance with clause 9. Primary aluminum is defined as new aluminum metal that is produced from alumina (or aluminum oxide) by the electrolytic Hall-Heroult process. The Secretary shall continue to monitor imports of the derivative articles described in Annex I to this proclamation, and shall, from time to time, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Defense, or other officials as appropriate, review the status of such imports with respect to the national security of the United States.
(6) The Secretary shall not consider any new product exclusion requests under clause 3 of Proclamation 9704, clause 1 of Proclamation 9776, or clause 2 of Proclamation 9980, or renew any such product exclusions in effect as of the date of this proclamation. Granted product exclusions shall remain effective until their expiration date or until excluded product volume is imported, whichever occurs first. The Secretary shall take all actions, including publication in the Federal Register, necessary to terminate the product exclusion process. In addition, all general approved exclusions shall be ineffective as of March 12, 2025, and the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register to this effect. I have determined that this is necessary to ensure that these general exclusions do not allow high volumes of imports, including of products that the domestic industry can produce and supply, to undermine the objectives articulated in the Secretary’s January 2018 report and relevant subsequent proclamations. Following the elimination of quantitative restrictions on certain sources pursuant to this proclamation, and subject to any restrictions set forth in or pursuant to other provisions of applicable law, imports of any aluminum article or derivative article from any source and in any quantity will be available to domestic importers, provided that the additional ad valorem tariffs are paid upon entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption. For purposes of implementing the requirements in this proclamation, importers of aluminum derivative articles shall provide to CBP any information necessary to identify the aluminum content used in the manufacture of aluminum derivative articles imports covered by this Proclamation. CBP is hereby authorized and directed to publish regulations or guidance implementing this requirement as soon as practicable.
(7) Within 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary shall establish a process for including additional derivative aluminum articles within the scope of the ad valorem duties proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, Proclamation 9980, as amended, and clause 5 of this proclamation. In addition to inclusions made by the Secretary, this process shall provide for including additional derivative aluminum articles at the request of a producer of an aluminum article or derivative aluminum article within the United States, or an industry association representing one or more such producers, establishing that imports of a derivative aluminum article have increased in a manner that threatens to impair the national security or otherwise undermine the objectives set forth in the Secretary’s January 19, 2018 report or any Proclamation issued pursuant thereto. When the Secretary receives such a request from a domestic producer or industry association, it shall issue a determination regarding whether or not to include the derivative aluminum article or articles within 60 days of receiving the request.
(8) The provisions of clause 3 of Proclamation 9704, clause 1 of Proclamation 9776, and clause 2 of Proclamation 9980, or any other provisions authorizing the Secretary to grant relief for certain products from the additional ad valorem duties or quantitative restrictions set forth in the prior proclamations described herein are hereby revoked, except to the extent required to implement clause 5 of this proclamation.
(9) The modifications made by this proclamation with respect to derivative aluminum articles identified in the annex that are not in chapter 76 of the HTSUS shall be effective upon public notification by the Secretary of Commerce, that adequate systems are in place to fully, efficiently, and expediently process and collect tariff revenue for covered articles.
(10) Any aluminum article or derivative article, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, that is subject to the duty imposed by this proclamation and that is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after the Commerce certification date, in accordance with clause 9, may be admitted only under “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, and will be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty related to the classification under the applicable HTSUS subheading.
(11) The United States International Trade Commission, in consultation with the Secretary, the Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in this proclamation within ten days of the date of this proclamation. The Secretary is authorized and directed to publish any such modifications to the HTSUS in the Federal Register.
(12) CBP shall prioritize reviews of the classification of imported aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles and, in the event that it discovers misclassification resulting in loss of revenue of the ad valorem duties proclaimed herein, it shall assess monetary penalties in the maximum amount permitted by law.In addition, CBP shall promptly notify the Secretary regarding evidence of any efforts to evade payment of the ad valorem duties proclaimed herein through processing or alteration of aluminum articles or derivative aluminum articles as a disguise or artifice prior to importation.In such circumstances, the Secretary shall consider the processed or altered aluminum articles or derivative aluminum articles for inclusion as derivative aluminum articles pursuant to clause 5 of this proclamation.
(13) No drawback shall be available with respect to the duties imposed pursuant to this proclamation.
(14) The Secretary may issue regulations and guidance consistent with this proclamation, including to address operational necessity.
(15) Any provision of a previous proclamation or Executive Order that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thistenth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Consumers appeared to be misdirected into paying monthly direct debits
A company which claimed to sell adult films has been shut down following concerns it was being used as a direct debit scam.
Drawntear Limited was wound-up at a hearing of the High Court in Manchester on Wednesday 12 February.
The company, which said it was based in Hull before moving its registered office address to Kings Langley in Hertfordshire just last month, failed to co-operate with investigations by the Insolvency Service.
Investigators however found evidence that those behind the company were actually based in the Czech Republic and Monaco.
Complaints made to Action Fraud also indicated that the company took unauthorised payments from members of the public.
David Usher, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:
There was a complete lack of transparency over who controlled Drawntear, the real nature of its trading activities, and unexplained payments of more than £280,000 from its bank account.
We were concerned that the company was being used as a vehicle for fraud and the absence of any accounting records meant it was necessary for us to take decisive action to prevent further harm to the public.
The Insolvency Service will not hesitate to take robust action to protect consumers and we would encourage everyone to be vigilant against such objectionable rogue operators.
Drawntear was incorporated on Companies House in November 2019, describing its business as “other retail sale in non-specialised stores”.
Accounts for the period up to the end of November 2022 however stated that its principal activity was “the online marketing of adult movies”.
There is also some suggestion it provided some form of undisclosed digital streaming services.
Attempts by the Insolvency Service to establish the true nature of the company’s trading activities were met with insufficient co-operation.
The failure to produce accounting records also meant that payments into Drawntear’s account of £283,098 and receipts of £294,234 were not explained.
Complaints from consumers indicated the company was taking direct debit payments without their permission.
In one example, a complainant identified recurring payments of £29.99 from their bank account to Drawntear which they were unaware of authorising.
A second consumer said that monthly payments which totalled £333.50 had been taken from their account.
The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator of Drawntear Limited.
All enquiries concerning the affairs of the company should be made to the Official Receiver of the Public Interest Unit: 16th Floor, 1 Westfield Avenue, Stratford, London, E20 1HZ. Email: piu.or@insolvency.gov.uk.
Drawntear Limited (company number 12303271)
The Insolvency Service can investigate complaints about corporate abuse by live companies. This may include serious misconduct, fraud, scams or dishonest practice in the way the company operates. Further information on our live investigations can be found here
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, made a speech outlining her vision for the future of the probation service.
Please note the political content has been removed from this speech.
Today, we are in Southwark, the home of London’s probation service, one of the busiest in the country.
Here in London, the Service supervises more than 36,000 offenders.
And, every day, in this building, there are a thousand untold stories of how our probation service protects the public and makes our streets safer.
I want to talk about the future of our probation service today.
But to look to that future, I think we must first look to the past.
Because it was here, in Southwark, that the probation service first took root.
Over 150 years ago, the Church of England’s temperance movement posted a man called George Nelson to Southwark’s police court.
Nelson was the first of a band of missionaries, driven by their faith and strict teetotalism, who gave up their time to help offenders give up the drink.
Addiction then, as addiction now, drove much criminal behaviour…
And the approach worked.
In fact, it worked so well that the courts came to rely on missionaries like Nelson.
A system soon developed where offenders would be released on the condition that they kept in touch with these volunteers.
Because what began as a moral cause proved to have a practical purpose:
These missionaries led to less crime and fewer victims.
As this Government might say: they made our streets safer.
By the early twentieth century, this voluntary service was so greatly valued that it was placed on a statutory footing.
The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act established the first formal structure for probation…
And the volunteers became professionals.
In the years that followed, the service grew:
The 1925 Criminal Justice Act paid probation officers a regular wage.
By the 1950s, probation’s work expanded to offenders on parole.
And by the 1980s, the service was focused increasingly on prison releases.
Over time, the role developed.
Where the early missionaries were focused on crimes driven by addiction…
In time, they took responsibility for the management of ever more, and ever more complex, offenders.
Too often overlooked, with our focus invariably falling on the police or on prisons…
Probation became an indispensable part of a criminal justice system that keeps us safe.
It remains so today, now a service that is more than 20,000 strong…
And probation officers supervise almost a quarter of a million offenders – around three times the number currently serving time in our prisons.
Each year, they oversee more than 4 million hours of community payback.
They monitor around 9,000 offenders on a tag at any given moment.
They provide sentencing advice to hundreds of courts every single day.
And they also provide a vital link to tens of thousands of victims, through the Victim Contact and the Victim Notification schemes.
But while there have been bright moments in the service’s past, we must acknowledge the dark days too.
In 2014 the service was split:
Part remained in the public sector, managing the highest-risk offenders.
The rest was hived off, to be run by the private sector, who would supervise those of low and medium risk.
Community Rehabilitation Companies would bring the ingenuity of the private sector to solve the problem of reoffending.
The rhetoric was of a revolution in how we manage offenders.
The reality was far different.
Workloads increased, as new offenders were brought under supervision for the first time…
The number of people on probation increased between December 2014 and December 2016, with almost 50,000 offenders newly under its remit.
Scarce resources were stretched further than ever…
Morale plummeted.
And worrying numbers voted with their feet, leaving the service altogether…
With the Inspector of Probation declaring a “national shortage” of probation professionals in 2019.
The new companies woefully underperformed.
Between 2017 and 2018, just 5 of 37 audits carried out by HMPPS demonstrated that expected standards were being met.
In 2019, 8 out of 10 companies inspected received the lowest possible rating – “inadequate” – for supervising offenders.
The Chief Inspector called them “irredeemably flawed”.
And the service was labelled ‘inadequate’.
In 2021, it was finally, rightly, re-unified and re-nationalised.
Now, make no mistake…
Every day, across the country, probation staff make this country safer.
This was clearly evident in the service’s response to the prison capacity crisis.
With prisons just days from collapse, this Government was forced to introduce an emergency release programme, which saw some offenders leave prison a few weeks or months early.
The alternative, as I said at the time, did not bear thinking about:
We would have been forced to shut the front door of our prisons…
An act that would have sent dominoes tumbling through our justice system:
Courts unable to hold trials…
Police forced to halt arrests…
And the eventual path to a total breakdown of law and order.
In making that decision, I knew the probation service would have to carry an even heavier load.
They would have to put in place plans for the safe release of prisoners in just a few weeks.
I tried to give them as much time as I possibly could to prepare:
An eight-week implementation period.
It wasn’t long to prepare, but the probation service used it with great skill.
But now is also a moment to be honest about the challenges the service faces.
And the simple fact is this:
The service was burdened with a workload that was, quite simply, impossible.
When we took office, we discovered that orders handed out by courts were not taking place.
In the 3 years to March 2024 around 13,000 Accredited Programmes, a type of rehabilitative course, did not happen.
This wasn’t because an offender had failed to do what was expected of them…
But instead because the Probation Service had been unable to deliver these courses.
As I have shown already in this job, I believe in confronting problems, not pretending they are not there.
And so, we will ensure only those offenders who pose a higher risk, and who need to receive these courses, will do so.
This isn’t a decision I take lightly.
But it is a decision to confront the reality of the challenges facing the probation service.
I should be clear:
For those who will not complete an accredited programme, they remain under the supervision of a probation officer…
And all the other requirements placed upon them will remain in place.
Any breach of a community sentence could see them hauled back into court.
Any breach of a licence condition could see them back behind bars.
Addressing individual issues like these, however, is no long-term solution to the challenges the probation service faces.
Today, across the country, probation officers are spread too thin – responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle.
Probation officers are drawn to the profession not because it is just another job.
This job is a vocation, even a calling…
They are, after all, the inheritors of those missionaries of 150 years ago.
They are experts in their discipline…
Who want to know that their work is protecting the public…
And keeping offenders on the straight and narrow.
Over-stretched, they can’t work with offenders in the way they need to.
And the burden placed on probation officers’ shoulders grow heavier and heavier.
It has driven people away from the job…
It has made the public less safe…
And it has to change.
It is clear we need to bring more people into the probation service.
In July, I committed to bringing on 1,000 trainee probation officers by March of this year.
But we must go further.
Today, I can announce that, next year, we will bring on at least 1,300 new, trainee probation officers.
New probation officers are the lifeblood of the service, and they will guarantee its future.
But they are not enough alone.
It is also clear we must remove the administrative burden that weighs probation officers down…
And makes them less effective in their roles.
Today, too many hours of probation officer time are wasted each day.
They are drowning in paperwork.
And I don’t mean metaphorical paperwork.
I mean literal pen and paperwork.
This takes up valuable time, that would be better spent working with offenders…
And it also introduces the risk of error – the failure to identify the critical piece of information that might shape a professional’s judgement of the risk that an offender poses.
Where digital processes do exist in the probation service, they can be difficult to navigate.
Information is stored in multiple different systems that do not speak to each other.
And probation officers are forced, laboriously, to type the same information time and again.
We will soon pilot a digital tool that will put all the information a probation officer needs to know into one place.
Over time, this will include information from other agencies, like the police as we need to make sure data is more readily shared, so that probation can make better decisions.
We’re also trialling a new system for risk assessing offenders, to make it more straightforward for probation officers to make robust decisions.
A group of officers in Brighton started using this in December last year…
And we estimate it will cut up to 20 percent of the time it takes to do this crucial activity.
It might sound simple, but the impact could be considerable.
Every minute saved is more time probation officers can spend working with offenders.
Less simple, but even more transformational, there’s the potential of artificial intelligence.
We are currently looking into voice transcription.
This would automatically record and transcribe supervision conversations by taking notes in real time…
Allowing probation officers to focus on building relationships, while also removing the need for them to enter handwritten notes into a computer afterwards.
In time, we believe that AI could play a more active role in supporting staff to supervise offenders – for example, drawing on the data we have on an offender to suggest a supervision plan tailored to them.
This new technology will ensure probation officers provide what only they can:
The human factor.
The ability to work with an offender, one-to-one, to understand the risk they pose…
To develop a plan for how to manage it…
Ultimately, to turn them away from a life of crime – and so protect the public.
That is what remains true about the probation officer’s job now, just as it was 150 years ago.
The courts didn’t turn to the temperance movement’s missionaries because they were great at paperwork.
They did so because of how they worked with offenders.
They knew – in the words of the Government Minister who brought in the 1907 Probation Act – how “to guide and admonish” an offender to make the public safer.
But while new staff and better technology are necessary to the future of our probation service…
They are not sufficient.
With a caseload of nearly a quarter of a million offenders…
We must also look at the work that probation officers are doing…
And we must ask:
Where should their time be spent…
And, more specifically, who should their time be spent with to have the greatest impact?
In this, it is clear there are two types of offender.
On the one hand, we have those who pose a higher risk to society.
In this group, we have those who are dangerous – posing a real risk of harm to the public.
We also have those whose offending is prolific – the one in every ten offenders who is guilty of nearly half of all sentenced crime.
On the other hand, we have offenders who pose a lower risk.
They are not serial offenders, with a high risk of reoffending.
Their crimes are instead often fuelled by addiction, homelessness, and joblessness.
These crimes are not excusable.
All crimes must be punished.
But these two groups – the higher and lower risk – are different.
If we want to reduce reoffending, cut crime and have safer streets, we have to treat them differently.
And too often today, we don’t.
We have a one size fits all approach.
That must change.
For higher-risk offenders, a probation officer’s time and focus is essential.
It is no exaggeration to say that effective supervision of this cohort can be the difference between life and death.
We all know the tragedies:
I think of Terri Harris, her children John Paul and Lacey Bennett and Lacey’s friend Connie Gent, savagely murdered by Damien Bendall in 2021, when Bendall was serving a community sentence.
And I think of Zara Aleena, murdered by Jordan McSweeney in 2022, just nine days after he had left prison on licence.
We will never be able to stop every tragedy.
But we have to stop more.
There are improvements that we can and must make to the processes probation officers follow, and the technology they use.
We have introduced new training, to better identify risk…
New digital tools, as I have mentioned already, will draw together the critical pieces of information from partner organisations, like the police.
But the vital ingredient is time:
The time of a professional probation officer…
Devoted to identifying the risk an offender poses…
Creating a plan to manage it…
And supervising, closely, that offender to ensure they do not deviate from it.
That is the human factor that only a probation officer can provide.
If probation officers are to have this valuable time with these offenders, we must be more efficient with the time they devote to lower-risk offenders.
At the very end of their time in office, my predecessor introduced a policy called Probation Reset.
This saw supervision of lower-risk offenders end after two-thirds of their licence period.
This was a step in the right direction.
The interventions that work best with lower risk offenders are not necessarily those provided by probation officers.
So that is where we must now direct the attention of their supervision.
We need to get these offenders off drugs and booze – reoffending rates are 19 points lower when an offender completes a drug treatment programme.
We need to ensure they have a roof over their heads – reoffending rates double for those released homeless.
And finally, we need to get them working – reoffending rates are up to 9 points lower when an offender is employed.
The probation service has a role to play here…
But their unique value is in referring offenders to the intervention that is required to address the cause of their offending.
And so today, I can announce that we will build on the work of Reset.
This Government will focus the probation service on the interventions that have the greater impact.
For lower risk offenders, we will task probation officers with providing a swifter intervention.
They will spend more time with an offender immediately after their release:
First, assessing the root causes of an offender’s crime…
Then referring them to the services that will address that behaviour:
Which could be education, training, drug treatment or accommodation…
Delivered by the probation service, our partners across Government, and through the brilliant work done by the voluntary sector.
Once offenders are following that direction, as long as the offender stays on the straight and narrow, we must then focus probation officer’s time more effectively:
That means more time spent with the offenders who pose the greater risk…
More time with offenders who pose a risk of a serious and violent further offence…
And more time with offenders whose prolific offending causes so much social and economic damage to local communities.
That is how we will reduce reoffending…
That is how we will cut crime…
And that is how we will make our streets safer.
These measures are necessary today, but they will be even more important in the months and years to come.
David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing will report soon.
He has been asked to ensure we never run out of prison places again.
There is no doubt that this will increase pressure on probation.
As I made clear when I announced the review, I have asked David to consider how we make more use of punishment outside of prison.
In my view, technology is likely to play a key role – taking advantage of advances in the tech that is being used here and in other jurisdictions:
Like sobriety tags, which can measure the alcohol levels in offenders’ sweat every 30 minutes, and have a 97 percent compliance rate…
And GPS tags, which can put in place exclusion zones to alert authorities if offenders enter areas we have banned them from.
There are also likely to be more sentences served in the community…
And more drug, alcohol and mental health treatment requirements placed on offenders.
These are the tools that must be at the judiciary’s disposal to deal with criminals…
And judges must have trust and confidence that the probation service can deliver them.
The changes I have announced today are about support for the probation service:
1,300 new trainee probation officers…
New technology to lighten the administrative burden…
And a new focus of their time on where it has the greatest impact.
Today, I have set out what I think the future direction of the probation service must be.
And I think we must, finally, consider the alternative.
What would happen if we allowed probation to carry on as it is?
What would happen if we allowed the service to be stretched so thin, trying to do too much with too many offenders…
Too much time spent doing the wrong things, and not enough time doing what is right and what works.
We know what the consequences would be.
We’ve seen it in the stories of far too many victims…
And the pain their friends and families have experienced – and continue to experience – every single day.
When the probation service isn’t able to properly assess the risk of offenders or supervise them…
Innocent people pay a terrible price.
The first job of the state is to keep its people safe.
We are willing to take the difficult decisions, where they must be taken.
I will support probation officers, both the new recruits we will bring in and the professionals of whom we have asked so much in recent years.
While they are professionals these days, and experts in their field…
They are drawn to the profession by the same desire that called to those missionaries a hundred and fifty years ago:
To encourage offenders to turn their backs on crime…
And to make our streets and the public safer.
To fulfil that purpose now, we must do things differently.
And that begins today.
Thank you.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Nations MIL OSI
Flags at all UN offices in Yemen are flying at half-mast this week following the death of a World Food Programme (WFP) staff member who had been arbitrarily detained by the Houthi de facto authorities in the north since last month.
“Heartbroken and outraged by the tragic loss of WFP team member, Ahmed, who lost his life while arbitrarily detained in Yemen,” Executive Director Cindy McCain said on Tuesday in a post on the social media platform X.
She described him as “a devoted humanitarian and father of two”, who “played a crucial role in our mission to deliver lifesaving food assistance.”
Ahmed was among seven national staff detained by local authorities in northern Yemen since 23 January.
The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, are also holding dozens of personnel from the UN, national and international NGOs, civil society and diplomatic missions – some have been detained for several years.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the death of the WFP staff member and expressed solidarity with all detained colleagues and their families.
“The circumstances surrounding this deplorable tragedy remain unclear, and the United Nations is urgently seeking explanations from the Houthi de facto authorities,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.
“I call for an immediate, transparent and thorough investigation and for those responsible to be held accountable.”
Mr. Guterres said the continued arbitrary detention of the other personnel is “unacceptable”. He renewed his call for their immediate and unconditional release.
“The United Nations continues to follow this situation closely and will continue to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of our staff in their efforts to deliver for the people of Yemen,” he said.
In response to the latest Houthi detentions, the Secretary-General on Monday instructed all UN agencies, funds and programmes to halt operations in Sa’ada governorate in northwest Yemen.
“This extraordinary and temporary measure seeks to balance the imperative to stay and deliver with the need to have the safety and security of the UN personnel and its partners guaranteed,” his Office said in a note to correspondents.
A decade of conflict between the Houthis and Yemeni government forces, who are backed by a Saudi-led coalition, has left some 18. 2 million people – more than half the population – in need of humanitarian assistance.
WFP supports millions through its programmes, which include delivering essential food to conflict-affected families, feeding schoolchildren, and providing nutritional support to women and children, including in camps for internally displaced people.
Source: Interpol (news and events)
The General Assembly is INTERPOL’s supreme governing body and comprises delegates appointed by the governments of our member countries.
It meets once a year and takes all the major decisions affecting general policy, the resources needed for international cooperation, working methods, finances and programmes of activities. These decisions are in the form of resolutions.
This year, the General Assembly will meet for its 90th session in New Delhi, India. The agenda is expected to include presentations, workshops and discussions on the following subjects:
With our member countries, we are exploring diverse perspectives on the future of policing in an increasingly digitalized world. What are the challenges, how can we respond to threats posed by technology and how should we shape our vision for 2030?
Different panels will look at topical policing initiatives. This will include:
This document provides member countries with an overview of the main crime threats in the world.
The General Assembly elects new members to the Executive Committee as the incumbents end their mandate. This year, two posts are up for election: the vice-president for Europe, and the delegate for Africa.
In 2023, INTERPOL will celebrate 100 years since the founding of the International Criminal Police Commission, which then became INTERPOL in 1956. A series of activities are planned to raise awareness of the role of international policing; past, present and future.
Police have been gathering to discuss international policing for 100 years – pictured here are delegates at the 2nd session of the General Assembly held in Berlin, Germany in 1924.
This panel will discuss how multi-stakeholder strategic partnerships can support law enforcement across the world to face the challenges in global security.
INTERPOL is committed to increasing the geographical and gender diversity of its workforce so it can better reflect and serve its global membership.
Different workshops will look at technology, innovation and global financial crime, giving participants the chance to share ideas in smaller groups.
We thank India and the officials from New Delhi for hosting this year’s General Assembly and welcoming our delegates from member countries. We recognize the time and effort it takes to put on an event of this scale.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Todd Young (R-IN) are leading bipartisan legislation to extend federal funding and protections for the Great Lakes. The senators introduced the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2025 to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) through 2031 and increase the program’s annual authorized funding levels from $475 million to $500 million. The GLRI is the most significant investment ever made to restore and protect the Great Lakes. The GLRI combines federal and nonfederal efforts to stop the spread of carp and other invasive species, restore coastline and habitats connecting streams and rivers, clean up environmentally damaged Areas of Concern, and prevent future contamination. While providing vital support for these efforts, the GLRI also helps ensure we can address new and emerging threats to the Great Lakes.
“The Great Lakes are a national treasure and central to our economy, environment, and way of life in Michigan. Since its creation, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has made significant headway in cleaning up Areas of Concern, protecting vital habitats, and restoring coastlines around the Great Lakes Basin,” said Senator Peters. “This bipartisan legislation will provide GLRI with the resources needed to build on that success and help protect and preserve the Great Lakes for future generations of Michiganders. I’m proud to again help lead the charge to strengthen this essential program.”
“The Great Lakes are an important part of Indiana’s ecosystem and economy,” said Senator Young. “The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a results-driven program that addresses the most serious issues threatening the wellbeing of the Great Lakes basin, including toxic substances, pollution, debris, and invasive species. Reauthorizing this program will continue to protect and preserve these lakes for generations to come.”
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2025 is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jon Husted (R-OH), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tina Smith (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Fetterman (D-PA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).
Since its inception, the GLRI has spurred tremendous progress throughout the Great Lakes region including nearly half of a million acres of habitat protected, restored, or enhanced, a five-fold increase in the successful cleanup and delisting of Areas of Concern, a ten-fold increase in the remediation of environmental and public health impairments, and reducing the threat of harmful algal blooms. The GLRI’s efforts have also resulted in economic returns of more than 3 to 1 across the region.
“The simple fact is the GLRI funds critical projects that make life better for the millions of Americans that depend on the Great Lakes. It also delivers a positive economic return on the government’s investment in cleaner water and healthier communities. Senator Peters and Senator Young along with other Great Lakes senators have our gratitude for introducing this important bill,” said Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes President and CEO.
“The GLRI is a landmark program that is making significant progress in restoring the waters, ecosystems, economies, and communities that make up the Great Lakes region,” said Erika Jensen, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission. “The Great Lakes Commission applauds Senators Peters and Young for introducing this important legislation, which will safeguard the economic and environmental health of the Great Lakes region for generations to come.”
“This bill is a winner for millions of people in the region,” said Laura Rubin, Director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition. “We thank Sens. Gary Peters and Todd Young for their bipartisan leadership and commitment to tackle the serious threats to our region’s drinking water, public health, jobs, and quality of life. Federal investments to restore the Great Lakes have been producing results, but serious threats remain. We look forward to working with the Great Lakes congressional delegation to pass this bipartisan bill that supports common sense solutions. If we scale back investments now, the problems will only get worse and more expensive to solve.”
“The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative provides critical investments in the health of the Great Lakes and the communities and businesses that rely on clean water. Communities across the region realize the lasting benefits of clean and healthy lakes, which attract visitors, create jobs, and sustain the Great Lakes way of life,” said Peter Laing, Great Lakes Business Network Co-Chair.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2025 enjoys broad support from Great Lakes advocates, including the Council of Great Lakes Governors, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, American Great Lakes Ports Association, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, American Sportfishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, National Audubon Society – Great Lakes, Environmental Law & Policy Center, MI League of Conservation Voters, Save the Dunes, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Clean Wisconsin, Ohio Environmental Council, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, and Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements
Defence leaders from across the world have gathered in Brussels today as the UK convenes a major Ukraine summit at NATO HQ.
UK convenes the 26th Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Brussels today – the first time the meeting has been chaired by a European nation – supporting UK and European security, a foundation of the Government’s Plan for Change.
Defence Secretary confirms landmark half a million rounds of artillery ammunition – worth more than £1 billion – has now been provided to Ukraine by the UK
New £150 million firepower package of military aid including drones, tanks and air defence systems will give Ukrainian soldiers fighting Russia the equipment they need.
Defence leaders from across the world have gathered in Brussels today as the UK convenes a major Ukraine summit at NATO HQ, demonstrating the UK’s leadership and unwavering military support for Ukraine in its fight against Putin’s illegal invasion.
Over 50 allies and partners, including Ukraine, the US, Japan and Australia, met for the 26th Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by Defence Secretary John Healey, the first time for any European nation.
Opening the meeting, the Defence Secretary announced a new £150m military support package to support Ukrainian troops fighting Russia on the frontline, part of the UK’s unprecedented £3 billion annual pledge to Ukraine.
This year, the UK’s total commitment has reached its highest ever level, standing at £4.5 billion, ensuring Ukraine can achieve peace through strength and underscoring the new 100 Year Partnership between the UK and Ukraine.
2025 is the critical year for the war in Ukraine. Ukrainians continue to fight with huge courage – military and civilians alike, and their bravery – fused with our support – has proved a lethal combination.
Speaking as a European Defence Minister, we know our responsibilities. We are doing more of the heavy lifting and sharing more of the burden.
While Russia is weakened, it remains undeniably dangerous. We must step up further – and secure peace through strength – together.
Speaking at today’s meeting, where he was joined by Ukrainian Defence Minster Rustem Umerov, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, French Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Defence Secretary Healey confirmed that the UK has sent a landmark 500,000 rounds of ammunition to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion, worth over £1 billion.
The Defence Secretary also confirmed that the UK is on track to provide more than 10,000 drones to Ukraine in a single year, with final deliveries due next month.
Today’s £150 million package includes thousands of drones, dozens of battle tanks and armoured vehicles and air defence systems.
More than 50 armoured and protective vehicles, including modernised T-72 tanks will be deployed to Ukraine by the end of spring, building on the thousands of pieces of equipment the UK has already given to Ukraine.
The air defence equipment will support more than 100 Ukrainian air defence teams, and has a 90% success rate of shooting down kamikaze drones, protecting Ukrainian critical national infrastructure including electricity sites frequently targeted by Russia. Announced by the Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Kyiv last month, the UK and Denmark are also providing fifteen Gravehawks to Ukraine.
Today’s package also includes major new maintenance contracts to support in-country repairs to critical kit – helping keep Ukraine’s tanks and artillery in the fight and bringing broken equipment back into use.
The Government is clear that the security of the UK starts in Ukraine and is therefore committed to Ukraine’s long-term security as a foundation for the government’s Plan for Change.
As part of today’s announcement, thousands of pieces of military equipment the UK has already donated to Ukraine will be repaired and better maintained through contracts worth around £60 million.
In a boost the UK’s economy, this includes a multi-million-pound contract with UK defence firm Babcock, who will train Ukrainian personnel to maintain and repair crucial equipment such as Challenger 2 tanks, self-propelled artillery, and combat reconnaissance vehicles inside Ukraine. Through this agreement, equipment can be serviced and returned to the front line quicker.
UK defence giant BAE Systems has also been awarded a £14 million contract, funded by Sweden and procured through the UK-administered International Fund for Ukraine, to repair Archer artillery systems. Working with Lancashire-based firm AMS, repairs of the Swedish-gifted Archer systems will be carried out in Ukraine with Ukrainian soldiers given technical training so they can maintain equipment for years to come.
Today’s announcement comes ahead of tomorrow’s NATO Defence Ministerial meeting, where Defence Secretary Healey will set out that in this critical year, nations must step up and back Ukraine with the resources they need to achieve long-term peace in the face of Russian aggression.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: World Health Organisation
On the sidelines of the World Summit on the Information Society +20 High-Level Event 27–31 May 2024, the Global Initiative on Digital Health convened global stakeholders governing, supporting and implementing digital health transformation for a multistakeholder dialogue in Geneva, Switzerland, from 28–29 May 2024.
WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus provided opening remarks at the World Summit on the Information Society +20 High-Level Event, alongside other global leaders, setting the stage for this significant event.
This first global convening of the Global Initiative on Digital Health was co-hosted by the Global Initiative on Digital Health, the Brazil G20 Presidency under the framework of the World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) and Action line C7: E-Health. The event commenced with remarks from:
Participants included representatives from over 60 countries and 150 organizations across ministries of health and Information Communication and Technology, government agencies, bilateral agencies, philanthropic organizations, academia, civil society, private sector and technologists. Through both in-person and online participation – enabled with support from the International Telecommunication Union – participants shared their experiences and lessons learned with standards-based and country-led development of digital health architecture.
The discussions focused on several critical topics, including:
Key milestones included kick-off of the development of the WHO-ITU Digital Public Infrastructure Reference Architecture for Digital Health Transformation and the launch of data collection for the Global Digital Health Monitor and Complementary Report focused on the WHO Africa Region through a collaboration between WHO and Africa CDC.
The second GIDH global convening will be held at the end of May in Geneva, Switzerland. Visit the GIDH webpage for updates and information on how to get involved.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
EAST LANSING, Mich., Feb. 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — TechSmith Corporation, an industry leader in visual communication, today released the newest editions of its award-winning Snagit and Camtasia products with advanced features focusing on simplifying workflows and improving capture and recording experiences. Snagit is an essential tool for professionals who capture, enhance, and share screenshots and videos, creating polished visual content that advances workplace communication and collaboration. Camtasia is an industry-leading screen recording, video, and audio editing solution to simplify the creation of high-quality tutorials, demos, training, and visual content. The 2025 versions are the final annual releases before TechSmith transitions to continuous delivery through its new subscription offerings.
“We’ve enhanced Snagit and Camtasia with new AI and Screentelligence features to make it faster and easier for users to achieve their creative goals,” said Tony Lambert, CTO of TechSmith. “User feedback heavily inspired these improvements, helping us simplify and streamline our most popular workflows and features so users can create content with less effort and improve visual communication within teams and organizations. We’re excited to build on this foundation with continuous updates throughout the year.”
Screentelligence leverages machine learning models and TechSmith’s proprietary algorithms to provide users with context-aware layout, design, and editing suggestions. By analyzing metadata locally, data never leaves the user environment for optimal speed and security.
Snagit 2025 Features
Snagit 2025 leverages AI and Screentelligence-powered features to perform nearly all of the creation work, allowing users to focus on refining content. The new features enhance creation speed and professional polish across everyday training, documentation, and workplace communications. With Snagit 2025, users can boost clarity, protect privacy, and engage their audience more effectively.
Camtasia 2025 Features
Camtasia 2025 delivers advanced AI and editing capabilities helping users effortlessly develop more polished and professional videos in a fraction of the time. The new features deliver a number of quality-of-life improvements that make it easier than ever to create and view tutorials, demos, and training content.
To learn about subscription and single license pricing and details for Snagit 2025, visit https://www.techsmith.com/store/snagit. To view subscription and single license pricing for Camtasia 2025 Essentials, Create, and Pro product plans, visit https://www.techsmith.com/store/camtasia.
About Snagit
Snagit is an award-winning tool for professionals to create polished visual content for workplace communication and collaboration. With a radically simple approach, Snagit allows users to capture images or videos of their screen, annotate content for clear instruction, and share within any preferred platform for viewing and/or team collaboration. Snagit is used by all Fortune 500 companies and more than 39 million people across more than 190 countries. Connect with Snagit on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. For more information, visit https://www.techsmith.com/snagit/.
About Camtasia
Camtasia is an industry-leading screen recording, video, and audio editing solution to simplify the creation of high-quality tutorials, demos, training, and visual content. With a rich, expansive, and flexible feature set, Camtasia has the lowest barrier of entry of any recording and editing software, helping users educate, inspire, and excite their audience with professional-quality videos. Its intuitive Camtasia Rev workflow guides users through various size, layout, background, effect, and filter choices, empowering users of all skill levels to quickly create professional quality videos. Camtasia is used by more than 34 million people globally, including all Fortune 500 companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Google. In 2024, Camtasia was rated a top 5 screen and video capture solution by G2’s community of reviewers. For more information, visit www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html. Connect with Camtasia on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and Instagram. For more information, visit https://www.techsmith.com/camtasia/.
About TechSmith
TechSmith is the market leader in screen capture software and productivity solutions for daily in-person, remote or hybrid workplace communication and customer-facing image and video content. The company’s award-winning flagship products, Snagit, Camtasia, and Audiate empower anyone to create remarkable videos and images that share knowledge for better training, tutorials, and everyday communication. TechSmith creates easy-to-use software and provides expert training resources and unmatched support — making TechSmith the global leader for easily creating effective images and videos. To date, billions of images and videos have been created with TechSmith’s products by more than 73 million people across more than 190 countries. TechSmith is ranked as a top 10 company in G2’s Spring 2024 report and winner of a 2024 Training Magazine Network Choice Award. Connect with TechSmith on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook. For more information, visit www.techsmith.com.
Media Contact:
Ross Blume
Fusion Public Relations
techsmith@fusionpr.com
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Municipality Finance Plc
Financial Statements Bulletin
12 February 2025 at 5:00 pm (EET)
Municipality Finance Plc Financial Statements Bulletin 1 January–31 December 2024
In brief: MuniFin Group in 2024
Comparison figures deriving from the income statement and figures describing the change during the financial year are based on figures reported for the corresponding period in 2023. Comparison figures deriving from the balance sheet and other cross-sectional items are based on the figures of 31 December 2023 unless otherwise stated.
* Alternative performance measure.
Key figures (Group)
| Jan–Dec 2024 | Jan–Dec 2023 | Change, % | |
| Net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes (EUR million)* | 181 | 176 | 2.9 |
| Net operating profit (EUR million)* | 166 | 139 | 19.5 |
| Net interest income (EUR million)* | 260 | 259 | 0.3 |
| New long-term customer financing (EUR million)* | 5,056 | 4,319 | 17.1 |
| New long-term funding (EUR million)* | 8,922 | 10,087 | -11.6 |
| Cost-to-income ratio, %* | 27.7 | 32.2 | -14.0** |
| Return on equity (ROE), %* | 7.2 | 6.6 | 9.3** |
| 31 Dec 2024 | 31 Dec 2023 | Change, % | |
| Long-term customer financing (EUR million)* | 35,173 | 32,022 | 9.8 |
| Green and social finance (EUR million)* | 9,353 | 7,029 | 33.1 |
| Balance sheet total (EUR million) | 53,092 | 49,736 | 6.7 |
| CET1 capital (EUR million) | 1,646 | 1,550 | 6.2 |
| Tier 1 capital (EUR million) | 1,646 | 1,550 | 6.2 |
| Total own funds (EUR million) | 1,646 | 1,550 | 6.2 |
| CET1 capital ratio, % | 107.7 | 103.4 | 4.2** |
| Tier 1 capital ratio, % | 107.7 | 103.4 | 4.2** |
| Total capital ratio, % | 107.7 | 103.4 | 4.2** |
| Leverage ratio, % | 12.3 | 12.0 | 2.5** |
| Personnel | 178 | 185 | -3.8 |
* Alternative performance measure.
** Change in ratio.
Comment on the 2024 financial year by President and CEO Esa Kallio
The operating environment in global economy and international politics went through a whirlwind of changes in 2024. Even in the turmoil, Finland stood steady and secure: our society is built on long-standing practices and institutions that have been developed together and tried and tested over time. This stability also helps safeguard MuniFin’s strong performance through shifts in the operating environment. Finnish society must continue to operate in broad collaboration and develop the structures of society in the long term. Sometimes this requires difficult decisions in society in the short term.
In 2024, the demand for MuniFin’s financing was especially high in the affordable social housing sector. In the future, however, the sector will be facing reductions on interest subsidy loan authorisations.
The Finnish system for affordable social housing is a success story that has served as a model across Europe – and will hopefully continue to do so, especially now that the rising cost of living has led to a surge in homelessness in many countries. Our state-subsidised housing production system has proven effective in reducing homelessness and regional segregation, increasing the supply of affordable social housing in growth centres, advancing municipalities’ housing policy goals of ensuring a diverse housing structure, and providing high-quality housing also to students, senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Especially in the past couple of years, affordable housing production has also significantly supported the vitality of the Finnish construction sector, helping offset the slump in housing construction. Finland’s well-functioning system should not be changed; rather, the current model and level of housing production subsidies should be kept as they are. Timely investments into affordable social housing production can also help level out construction cycles and support employment.
In 2024, MuniFin reached new milestones in sustainable investments. In October, we issued our tenth green bond, the high demand of which was once again testament to our strong position as an international forerunner in the financial sector. Moreover, sustainable finance made up the majority of the new long-term customer financing we granted in 2024.
Information on the Group results
| Consolidated income statement | Jan–Dec 2024 | Jan–Dec 2023 | Change, % | Jul–Dec 2024 | Jul–Dec 2023 | Change, % |
| (EUR million) | ||||||
| Net interest income | 260 | 259 | 0.3 | 132 | 135 | -2.4 |
| Other income | 2 | 0 | >100 | 1 | -1 | >100 |
| Income excluding unrealised fair value changes | 262 | 259 | 1.1 | 132 | 134 | -1.4 |
| Commission expenses | -17 | -16 | 8.2 | -9 | -8 | 11.2 |
| HR expenses | -21 | -20 | 2.0 | -10 | -10 | -4.3 |
| Other items in administrative expenses | -23 | -20 | 12.4 | -12 | -11 | 12.0 |
| Depreciation and impairment on tangible and intangible assets | -6 | -7 | -7.8 | -3 | -3 | -14.3 |
| Other operating expenses | -14 | -19 | -27.0 | -7 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Costs | -81 | -82 | -1.9 | -40 | -39 | 3.0 |
| Credit loss and impairments on financial assets | 0 | -1 | -72.9 | -1 | -1 | -38.7 |
| Net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes | 181 | 176 | 2.9 | 92 | 95 | -2.8 |
| Unrealised fair value changes | -16 | -37 | -58.4 | -31 | -33 | -3.6 |
| Net operating profit | 166 | 139 | 19.5 | 61 | 62 | -2.4 |
| Income tax expense | -33 | -28 | 17.3 | -12 | -12 | -2.3 |
| Profit for the period | 133 | 111 | 20.1 | 48 | 50 | -2.4 |
The Group’s net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes
MuniFin Group’s core business operations remained strong in 2024. The Group’s net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes increased by 2.9% (3.2%) and amounted to EUR 181 million (EUR 176 million). The growth was influenced both by an increase in other income and a decrease in costs as net interest income remained at the level of previous year.
The Group’s income excluding unrealised fair value changes was EUR 262 million (EUR 259 million) and grew by 1.1% (6.5%). Net interest income grew by 0.3% (7.5%), totalling EUR 260 million (EUR 259 million). Net interest income was positively affected by growing business volumes. The increase in funding costs due to the market conditions and the shape of the yield curve slowed the growth of net interest income.
Other income totalled EUR 2.0 million (EUR 0.1 million). It consisted mainly of the billing of MuniFin’s digital services and the turnover of the subsidiary company Inspira from the early part of the year. In the previous year, negative realised FX rate changes reduced other income. At 0.8% (0.1%), other income relative to income excluding unrealised fair value changes forms only a minor part of the Group’s income.
The Group’s costs were EUR 81 million (EUR 82 million), down by 1.9% from the year before (+12.4%). The reduction in expenses was due to the fact that no contribution fee was collected for the Single Resolution Fund in 2024.
Commission expenses totalled EUR 17 million (EUR 16 million), of which EUR 14 million (EUR 13 million) consisted of the guarantee commission collected by the Municipal Guarantee Board for guaranteeing MuniFin’s funding.
HR and administrative expenses grew by 7.2% (9.0%) and reached EUR 44 million (EUR 41 million). HR expenses comprised EUR 21 million (EUR 20 million) and other administrative expenses EUR 23 million (EUR 20 million). The average number of employees in the Group was 187 (183) during the financial year. Other items in administrative expenses grew by 12.4% (8.8%), mainly due to the increased costs of maintaining and developing information systems.
During the financial year, depreciation and impairment of tangible and intangible assets totalled EUR 6 million (EUR 7 million).
Other operating expenses were EUR 14 million (EUR 19 million). The main reason for this decrease is that there was no contribution fee to the Single Resolution Fund in 2024. Other operating expenses excluding fees collected by authorities grew by 22.1% (9.9%) to EUR 11 million (EUR 9 million).
Credit loss and impairments on financial assets were EUR 0.3 million (EUR 1.2 million). This item consists of expected credit losses (ECL). The Group updated the model used to estimate the probability of default and the forward-looking macro scenarios during the financial year. The Group’s management has assessed the impact of general cost inflation and increased interest rates on customer financing receivables and credit risk and decided to release the additional discretionary provision in full at the end of 2024 (the amount of the additional discretionary provision was EUR 0.6 million at the end of 2023, and in June 2024, EUR 0.4 million of the additional provision was released). The update of the probability of default model increased expected credit losses by EUR 0.9 million euros, as the amount of exposures that moved from stage 1 to stage 2 increased. Most of the transferred exposures were subject to the previous additional discretionary provision. Therefore, the Group’s management considered that there is no longer a basis for recording a group-specific additional provision.
The Group’s overall credit risk position has remained low. The amount of forborne loans was EUR 561 million (EUR 497 million), while non-performing exposures amounted to EUR 292 million (EUR 142 million) at the end of the year. These non-performing exposures represented 0.8% (0.4%) of total customer exposures. At the end of December, the Group had EUR 13 million in receivables due to the insolvency of customers, for which the collateral realisation process is ongoing, or the credit receivable is due for payment by the guarantor (there were no such receivables at the end of 2023). All the Group’s customer financing receivables are from Finnish municipalities, joint municipal authorities, wellbeing services counties or joint county authorities, or accompanied by a securing municipal, joint municipal authority, wellbeing services county or joint county authority guarantee or a state deficiency guarantee supplementing real estate collateral, and therefore no final credit losses will arise. According to the management’s assessment, all receivables from customers will be fully recovered. During the Group’s history of 35 years, it has never recognised any final credit losses in its customer financing.
The credit risk of the Group’s liquidity portfolio has likewise remained at a low level, and the average credit rating of the debt securities in the portfolio is AA+ (AA+).
The Group’s profit and unrealised fair value changes
The Group’s net operating profit was EUR 166 million (EUR 139 million). Unrealised fair value changes decreased the Group’s net operating profit by EUR 16 million (in 2023: decreased by EUR 37 million). In January–December, unrealised fair value changes in hedge accounting amounted to EUR -12 million (EUR -27 million) and unrealised net result on financial assets and liabilities through profit or loss to EUR -4 million (EUR -10 million).
The Group’s effective tax rate in the financial year was 19.9% (20.2%). Taxes in the Consolidated income statement amounted to EUR 33 million (EUR 28 million). After taxes, the Group’s profit for the financial year was EUR 133 million (EUR 111 million).
The Group’s full-year return on equity (ROE) was 7.2% (6.6%). Excluding unrealised fair value changes, the ROE was 7.9% (8.4%).
The Group’s other comprehensive income includes unrealised fair value changes of EUR 169 million (EUR 109 million). During the financial year, the most significant item affecting the other comprehensive income was net change in fair value due to changes in own credit risk of financial liabilities designated at fair value through profit or loss totalling EUR 137 million (EUR 75 million). The cost-of-hedging amounted to EUR 30 million (EUR 25 million). Net change in fair value of financial assets at fair value through other comprehensive income was EUR 2 million (EUR 8 million).
On the whole, unrealised fair value changes net of deferred tax affected the Group’s equity by EUR 122 million (EUR 57 million) and CET1 capital net of deferred tax in capital adequacy by EUR 13 million (EUR -3 million). The cumulative effect of unrealised fair value changes on the Group’s own funds in capital adequacy calculations was EUR 58 million (EUR 45 million).
Unrealised fair value changes reflect the temporary impact of market conditions on the valuation levels of financial instruments at the time of reporting. The value changes may vary significantly from one reporting period to another, causing volatility in profit, equity and own funds in capital adequacy calculations. The effect on individual contracts will be removed by the end of the contract period. In the financial year, unrealised fair value changes were influenced in particular by changes in interest rates and credit risk spreads in the Group’s main funding markets.
In accordance with its risk management principles, the Group uses derivatives to financially hedge against interest rate, exchange rate and other market and price risks. Cash flows under agreements are hedged, but due to the generally used valuation methods, changes in fair value differ between the financial instrument and the respective hedging derivative. Changes in the shape of the interest rate curve and credit risk spreads in different currencies affect the valuations, which cause the fair values of hedged assets and liabilities and hedging instruments to behave in different ways. In practice, the changes in valuations are not realised on a cash basis because the Group holds financial instruments and their hedging derivatives almost always until the maturity date. The counterparty credit risk related to derivatives is comprehensively covered by collateral management. Changes in credit risk spreads are not expected to be materialised as credit losses for the Group, because the Group’s liquidity reserve has been invested in instruments with low credit risk.
The Parent Company and subsidiary company Inspira’s results
In 2024, MuniFin’s net interest income amounted to EUR 260 million (EUR 259 million) and net operating profit to EUR 166 million (EUR 139 million).
The turnover of MuniFin’s subsidiary company, Financial Advisory Services Inspira Ltd, was EUR 0.4 million (EUR 1.4 million), and its net operating result amounted to EUR -0.5 million (EUR 0.0 million). The Group discontinued Inspira’s advisory services in the spring. In the future, the subsidiary company will provide some of the digital added value services MuniFin offers to its customers.
The Group’s financial performance in July–December
In the second half of 2024, the Group’s net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes amounted to EUR 92 million (Jul–Dec 2023: EUR 95 million), remaining almost at the same level as in the year before. Net interest income totalled EUR 132 million (Jul–Dec 2023: EUR 135 million) and costs EUR 40 million (Jul–Dec 2023: EUR 39 million) in July–December. Unrealised fair value changes weakened the net operating profit by EUR 31 million (in the comparison period Jul–Dec 2023: weakened by EUR 33 million). The Group’s net operating profit amounted to EUR 61 million (Jul–Dec 2023: EUR 62 million) in July–December.
In the second half of the year, the Group’s net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes increased by 3.1% from the first half. Net interest income went up by 2.4% from the first half of the year. Costs amounted to EUR 40 million in July–December and to EUR 41 million in January–June. The Group’s net operating profit totalled EUR 61 million in July– December, decreasing by 42.4% from January–June. In the second half of the year, unrealised fair value changes affected the net operating profit by EUR -31 million, while in the first half of the year, their effect was EUR 16 million.
Outlook for 2025
Europe’s economy is starting 2025 off from a weaker position than anticipated. Business cycle expectations are subdued, and the global operating environment is fraught with uncertainty. Donald Trump’s presidential administration is expected to pursue protectionist trade policies, which could, at worst, severely slow down the euro area’s economic recovery.
However, if Europe is exempted from the planned universal tariff on all US imports and the euro continues to weaken, businesses in the euro area could even find new opportunities to expand their market share in the US. Europe could also suffer negative economic effects if capital needed to improve productivity is increasingly allocated to strengthening military defence and supply security. The political turmoil in France and Germany adds another layer of uncertainty into the euro area economy.
To counterbalance the growing economic uncertainty, the European Central Bank is expected to continue brisk interest rate cuts in 2025. Short-term market rates are projected to come down to about two per cent or even slightly below that by mid-year.
The sharp interest rate cuts will be the most crucial booster for the Finnish economy in 2025. Although the overall tone of the economic turnround is still relatively subdued, the simultaneous recovery of demand drivers could boost annual GDP growth to surprisingly strong figures. Even so, macroeconomic forecasts continue to be very uncertain. Finland’s two most important export markets, the US and Germany, both entail considerable risks, and a sharperthan-expected decline in employment casts a shadow over the recovery of the domestic market. From the Group’s perspective, the 2024 rise in credit risk spreads is expected to push up the cost of funding, weakening the Group’s net interest income in 2025.
Municipalities are undergoing sizeable adjustment programmes, but their financing deficit is nevertheless expected to grow again in 2025. Municipal finances are strained by several factors: central government transfer cuts resulting from the balancing of health and social services reform transfers, increased net investments, health and social services facilities that are left unused by wellbeing services counties but continue to incur maintenance, conversion and demolition costs, as well as uncertainty surrounding the actual costs of the employment services reform. In addition, the weakened employment outlook poses a serious risk to tax revenues.
Privately funded housing production is expected to take an upward turn in 2025, but its volume will nevertheless remain well below normal levels. The housing market is starting to gradually pick up, and housing prices are expected to start rising moderately from 2025 onwards. In contrast, state-subsidised housing production will see fewer building starts due to reductions on interest subsidy loan authorisations. In March 2025, the Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (Ara) will cease to operate as an independent government agency and its operations will instead be integrated under the Ministry of the Environment. This change does not mean the end of state-subsidised housing production; rather, it aims to improve the administration of affordable social housing production. According to MuniFin’s analysis, the integration will not have a direct effect on MuniFin’s business. Interest subsidy loans will continue to be granted to state-subsidised housing production, but the related processes will be administered at the Ministry of the Environment. MuniFin will monitor the practical implications closely. With the managing authority changing, the Company may need to make changes to some of its processes in response.
Considering the above-mentioned circumstances, the Group expects its net operating profit excluding unrealised fair value changes to be at the same level or lower in 2025 as in 2024. The Group expects its capital adequacy ratio and leverage ratio to remain strong. The valuation principles set in the IFRS framework may cause significant but temporary unrealised fair value changes, some of which increase the volatility of net operating profit and make it more difficult to estimate.
These estimates are based on a current assessment of the development of MuniFin Group’s operations and the operating environment.
Municipality Finance Plc
Further information:
Esa Kallio, President and CEO, tel. +358 50 337 7953
Harri Luhtala, Executive Vice President, Finance, CFO, tel. +358 50 592 9454
MuniFin (Municipality Finance Plc) is one of Finland’s largest credit institutions. The owners of the company include Finnish municipalities, the public sector pension fund Keva and the State of Finland. The Group’s balance sheet is over EUR 53 billion.
MuniFin’s customers include municipalities, joint municipal authorities, wellbeing services counties, joint county authorities, corporate entities under the control of the above-mentioned organisations, and affordable social housing. Lending is used for environmentally and socially responsible investment targets such as public transportation, sustainable buildings, hospitals and healthcare centres, schools and day care centres, and homes for people with special needs.
MuniFin’s customers are domestic, but the Company operates in a completely global business environment. The Company is an active Finnish bond issuer in international capital markets and the first Finnish green and social bond issuer. The funding is exclusively guaranteed by the Municipal Guarantee Board.
Read more: www.munifin.fi
Attachment
Source: Scottish Greens
The hostile environment is punishing some of our most marginalised communities.
The biggest UK parties are competing with one another in a bid to be as hostile as possible to refugees and migrant communities, say the Scottish Greens.
The party has condemned new guidance by Labour to deny citizenship to people who arrive in the UK on a small boat, and the race to the bottom that it represents for human rights.
Ms Chapman said:
“It is grotesque to watch Labour competing with the Tories and Reform to see who can be the most hostile to refugees and migrant communities. It is a race to the bottom for human rights.
“Keir Starmer was a human rights lawyer, but now he is implementing some of the most racist, authoritarian and despicable anti-migrant policies in decades.
“Nobody gets in a small boat to make a dangerous crossing by choice. It is because they believe they have no alternative, that not doing so would be worse, perhaps even more deadly. These journeys are symptomatic of an inhumane system that does not offer safe passage or support.
“When refugees arrive in the UK they are met with a cruel and opaque system that doesn’t offer anywhere near enough to live comfortably, meanwhile some of the most powerful people in the country scaremonger, scapegoat and lie about them on a daily basis.
“We can and must be a welcoming country that offers support and solidarity to people in need rather than punishing and demonising them. We must also recognise the role that the UK has played in creating instability in other parts of the world.
“Freedom, empathy, compassion and solidarity have to be at the heart of the system we create. But that can’t happen as long as the UK government is prioritising performative cruelty and trying to compete with Nigel Farage.”
Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements
The Pubs Code Adjudicator (PCA) is pleased to confirm the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has secured the second extension to its contract for the provision of arbitration services on behalf of the PCA.
The PCA has confirmed the Ciarb as the contracted provider of arbitration management services for tied tenants of pub-owning businesses with more than 500 tied tenants. This is a service which has been provided by Ciarb since December 2021 following a tender process.
Fiona Dickie, PCA says, “I am pleased Ciarb is continuing to work with the PCA in the provision of the arbitration service for tied tenants for another year. If a tenant is in dispute with their pub-owning business about their Pubs Code rights, that dispute can be referred to the Pubs Code Adjudicator to be decided by an arbitrator. Arbitration gives tenants an independent decision on a dispute and is a crucial element of tenant rights under the Pubs Code. The contract with Ciarb is an important support to the provision of a quality arbitration service.
Tenants are encouraged to read the PCA’s factsheet, which explains what arbitration is, what disputes may be referred, the strict time limits involved and the costs rules that apply”.
Further details
Further details about the award of the contract and names of current arbitrators can be found on the Ciarb’s website.
To make a referral for arbitration under the Pubs Code, please complete the Referral Form. You will need to pay a referral fee of £200. Full details about the form and how to pay the referral fee are on Ciarb’s website.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United States Small Business Administration
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in Arkansas of the March 12, 2025 deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses caused by severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes and flooding that occurred May 24-27, 2024.
The disaster declaration covers the counties of Baxter, Benton, Boone, Carroll, Fulton, Madison, Marion, Nevada, Randolph and Sharp.
Under the declaration, SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to PNPs that provide non-critical services of a governmental nature and suffered financial losses directly related to the disaster. Examples of eligible non-critical PNPs include, but are not limited to, food kitchens, homeless shelters, museums, libraries, community centers, schools, and colleges.
EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.
The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 3.25%, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due, until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amount terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.
For more information and to apply online visit SBA.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Submit completed loan applications no later than March 12.
###
About the U.S. Small Business Administration
The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mitchell Gallagher, Ph.D Candidate in Political Science, Wayne State University
Every year, China’s minister of foreign affairs embarks on what has now become a customary odyssey across Africa. The tradition began in the late 1980s and sees Beijing’s top diplomat visit several African nations to reaffirm ties. The most recent visit, by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, took place in mid-January 2025 and included stops in Namibia, the Republic of the Congo, Chad and Nigeria.
For over two decades, China’s burgeoning influence in Africa was symbolized by grand displays of infrastructural might. From Nairobi’s gleaming towers to expansive ports dotting the continent’s shorelines, China’s investments on the continent have surged, reaching over US$700 billion by 2023 under the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s massive global infrastructure development strategy.
But in recent years, Beijing has sought to expand beyond roads and skyscrapers and has made a play for the hearts and minds of African people. With a deft mix of persuasion, power and money, Beijing has turned to African media as a potential conduit for its geopolitical ambitions.
Partnering with local outlets and journalist-training initiatives, China has expanded China’s media footprint in Africa. Its purpose? To change perceptions and anchor the idea of Beijing as a provider of resources and assistance, and a model for development and governance.
The ploy appears to be paying dividends, with evidence of sections of the media giving favorable coverage to China. But as someone researching the reach of China’s influence overseas, I am beginning to see a nascent backlash against pro-Beijing reporting in countries across the continent.
China’s approach to Africa rests mainly on its use of “soft power,” manifested through things like the media and cultural programs. Beijing presents this as “win-win cooperation” – a quintessential Chinese diplomatic phrase mixing collaboration with cultural diplomacy.
Key to China’s media approach in Africa are two institutions: the China Global Television Network (CGTN) Africa and Xinhua News Agency.
CGTN Africa, which was set up in 2012, offers a Chinese perspective on African news. The network produces content in multiple languages, including English, French and Swahili, and its coverage routinely portrays Beijing as a constructive partner, reporting on infrastructure projects, trade agreements and cultural initiatives. Moreover, Xinhua News Agency, China’s state news agency, now boasts 37 bureaus on the continent.
By contrast, Western media presence in Africa remains comparatively limited. The BBC, long embedded due to the United Kingdom’s colonial legacy, still maintains a large footprint among foreign outlets, but its influence is largely historical rather than expanding. And as Western media influence in Africa has plateaued, China’s state-backed media has grown exponentially. This expansion is especially evident in the digital domain. On Facebook, for example, CGTN Africa commands a staggering 4.5 million followers, vastly outpacing CNN Africa, which has 1.2 million — a stark indicator of China’s growing soft power reach.
China’s zero-tariff trade policy with 33 African countries showcases how it uses economic policies to mold perceptions. And state-backed media outlets like CGTN Africa and Xinhua are central to highlighting such projects and pushing an image of China as a benevolent partner.
Stories of an “all-weather” or steadfast China-Africa partnership are broadcast widely, and the coverage frequently depicts the grand nature of Chinese infrastructure projects. Amid this glowing coverage, the labor disputes, environmental devastation or debt traps associated with some Chinese-built infrastructure are less likely to make headlines.
Questions of media veracity notwithstanding, China’s strategy is bearing fruit. A Gallup poll from April 2024 showed China’s approval ratings climbing in Africa as U.S. ratings dipped. Afrobarometer, a pan-African research organization, further reports that public opinion of China in many African countries is positively glowing, an apparent validation of China’s discourse engineering.
Further, studies have shown that pro-Beijing media influences perceptions. A 2023 survey of Zimbabweans found that those who were exposed to Chinese media were more likely to have a positive view of Beijing’s economic activities in the country.
The effectiveness of China’s media strategy becomes especially apparent in the integration of local media. Through content-sharing agreements, African outlets have disseminated Beijing’s editorial line and stories from Chinese state media, often without the due diligence of journalistic skepticism.
Meanwhile, StarTimes, a Chinese media company, delivers a steady stream of curated depictions of translated Chinese movies, TV shows and documentaries across 30 countries in Africa.
But China is not merely pushing its viewpoint through African channels. It’s also taking a lead role in training African journalists, thousands of whom have been lured by all-expenses-paid trips to China under the guise of “professional development.” On such junkets, they receive training that critics say obscures the distinction between skill-building and propaganda, presenting them with perspectives conforming to Beijing’s line.
Ethiopia exemplifies how China’s infrastructure investments and media influence have fostered a largely favorable perception of Beijing. State media outlets, often staffed by journalists trained in Chinese-run programs, consistently frame China’s role as one of selfless partnership. Coverage of projects like the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway line highlights the benefits, while omitting reports on the substandard labor conditions tied to such projects — an approach reflective of Ethiopia’s media landscape, where state-run outlets prioritize economic development narratives and rely heavily on Xinhua as a primary news source.
In Angola, Chinese oil companies extract considerable resources and channel billions into infrastructure projects. The local media, again regularly staffed by journalists who have accepted invitations to visit China, often portray Sino-Angolan relations in glowing terms. Allegations of corruption, the displacement of local communities and environmental degradation are relegated to side notes in the name of common development.
Despite all of the Chinese influence, media perspectives in Africa are far from uniformly pro-Beijing.
In Kenya, voices of dissent are beginning to rise, and media professionals immune to Beijing’s allure are probing the true costs of Chinese financial undertakings. In South Africa, media watchdogs are sounding alarms, pointing to a gradual attrition of press freedoms that come packaged with promises of growth and prosperity. In Ghana, anxiety about Chinese media influence permeates more than the journalism sector, as officials have raised concerns about the implications of Chinese media cooperation agreements. Wariness in Ghana became especially apparent when local journalists started reporting that Chinese-produced content was being prioritized over domestic stories in state media.
Beneath the surface of China’s well-publicized projects and media offerings, and the African countries or organizations that embrace Beijing’s line, a significant countervailing force exists that challenges uncritical representations and pursues rigorous journalism.
Yet as CGTN Africa and Xinhua become entrenched in African media ecosystems, a pertinent question comes to the forefront: Will Africa’s journalists and press be able to uphold their impartiality and retain intellectual independence?
As China continues to make strategic inroads in Africa, it’s a fair question.
Mitchell Gallagher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. China flexes its media muscle in Africa – encouraging positive headlines as part of a soft power agenda – https://theconversation.com/china-flexes-its-media-muscle-in-africa-encouraging-positive-headlines-as-part-of-a-soft-power-agenda-245804
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Latest information and actions from the Education and Skills Funding Agency for academies, schools, colleges, local authorities and further education providers.
| Article | Title |
|---|---|
| Information | Update on post-16 funding arrangements |
| Reminder | Mid-year funding claim for 2024 to 2025 |
| Article | Title |
|---|---|
| Action | Submit your school resource management self-assessment checklist |
| Information | Update on post-16 funding arrangements |
| Information | Increase in employer National Insurance contributions |
| Information | Academy accounts return data from 2023 to 2024 is now available on the new financial benchmarking and insights tool |
| Information | Mid-year funding claim for 2024 to 2025 |
| Reminder | View national funding formula for schools service is being retired |
| Events and webinars | Q&A drop-in sessions – academies chart of accounts and automation |
| Events and webinars | Financial management system (FMS) comparison matrix |
| Events and webinars | FMS comparison matrix |
| Events and webinars | Department for Education (DfE) academies chart of accounts mapping review workshop |
| Events and webinars | Risk protection arrangement (RPA) members only – summer fetes |
| Events and webinars | DfE energy for schools service – simplified buying of gas and electricity |
| Events and webinars | Energy cost recovery services for your school |
| Events and webinars | RPA members only – mock trial |
| Events and webinars | Q&A drop-in session – academies chart of accounts and automation |
| Article | Title |
|---|---|
| Information | Update on post-16 funding arrangements |
| Information | Increase in employer National Insurance contributions |
| Information | Updated early years benchmarking tool for 2024 to 2025 |
| Information | Financial benchmarking and insights – conditions data, Cumbria and federations update |
| Reminder | Mid-year funding claim for 2024 to 2025 |
| Reminder | View national funding formula for schools service is being retired |
| Events and webinars | Risk protection arrangement (RPA) members only – summer fetes |
| Events and webinars | Department for Education (DfE) energy for schools service – simplified buying of gas and electricity |
| Events and webinars | Energy cost recovery services for your school |
| Events and webinars | RPA members only – mock trial |
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Scottish Secretary present to witness signing
Senior Muslim and Jewish denominational leaders in the UK have signed [11 February] a landmark agreement, The Drumlanrig Accord.
The accord establishes a structured framework for sustained Muslim-Jewish collaboration, fostering deeper understanding and shared responsibility.
Signed at Spencer House, the faith leaders subsequently presented a copy of the accord to His Majesty The King at Buckingham Palace.
The initiative represents a deep and enduring commitment from the UK’s Jewish and Muslim communities to strengthen relationships, promote understanding, and work together for the common good. It is the outcome of a yearlong series of high-level meetings convened by Imam Dr Sayed Razawi, culminating in a retreat in January at Drumlanrig Castle, hosted by the Duke of Buccleuch. The Scottish Secretary joined the delegates at the event remotely.
After witnessing the signing of the accord, Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said:
It was a real privilege to witness the signing of this agreement between senior Muslim and Jewish leaders. It is a really important moment in interfaith relations. I was honoured to join delegates for part of their event at Drumlanrig Castle, and was impressed by the depth of commitment on all sides to ensure reconciliation and positive relationships. I know that all involved will continue to work together to deepen understanding and collaboration in Scotland and across the UK.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government Non-Ministerial Departments
Charity Commission CEO David Holdsworth discusses the power of philanthropy at The Beacon Philanthropy and Impact Forum 2025.
Good afternoon, I am delighted to be here with you.
I’d like to thank the Beacon Collaborative for bringing us together today, helping us think with many minds on one, urgent challenge: how to grow the value and impact of philanthropy in our nations and around the world.
It is apt that we are meeting here at Guildhall, a place that speaks to the close relationship between commerce and charity in this city. The City Bridge Trust, administered by the Corporation of London, based here at Guildhall, made grants worth £30m to charities across the capital last year alone. Over the same period, the Lord Mayor’s Appeal, which works to encourage philanthropy in the city spent over £3m on projects designed to strengthen communities and cohesion across London.
These initiatives recognise and reflect a key facet of the social contract in this country.
Namely that with privilege and good fortune come responsibility. Our hosts, the Beacon Collaborative, put this in simple terms: “Our economy offers the freedom to create great wealth, but with reward must come responsibility.”
That responsibility is not about sacrifice or denial. It is based on an understanding that we are all part of a wider community, an ecosystem of mutual dependence and support, on whose cohesion the success of our society – and all individual wellbeing – ultimately rests.
The Charity Commission stands at a unique vantage point, where the perspectives of charities, government, the public and donors meet.
From this position, we see two trends.
First, an incredibly challenging economic environment for the sector.
Like other sectors, charities face inflationary pressures and rising operational costs.
But charities are also dealing with increased demands for their services.
And at the same time, public funding sources in particular are increasingly squeezed.
The cumulative impact of these trends on charities is, in some cases, extremely challenging.
Take arts and culture, a particular passion of mine. Between 2010 and 2023, grant in aid funding for UK arts and cultural organisations fell by 18%. Local government revenue funding of culture and related services have also decreased by 48% in England, and 40% in Wales.
It’s important to acknowledge that these cuts have come amid very challenging public finances, with tough choices having to be made. But the impact on the sector is undeniable.
Other sub-sectors are especially vulnerable, too.
Last summer, we learnt that one in five hospices in the UK have cut or closed their services in the last year or are planning to do so.
In October, Getting on Board, which for twenty years played a crucial role in encouraging new talent into trusteeship, announced it could no longer continue to operate.
Our second observation, though open to some debate, is a perception that high-net worth philanthropy has declined in recent years.
To be clear, the UK remains, according to some but not all measures, among the most generous group of nations on the planet, funding a thriving and vibrant charitable sector.
In total, charities in England and Wales last year managed over £90 billion in annual income. The contribution of charity and voluntary organisations as a percentage of GDP is greater, according to some measures, than the entire agricultural sector of the UK.
But the proportion of those giving seems to be falling.
For some years, The Charities Aid Foundation – who fulfil such a valuable role in producing research about the sector, and of course in supporting occasions such as this – have published reports pointing to a declining number of donors.
CAF’s latest report finds that, while the overall value of giving is holding up in real terms – in 2023 people donated at least £13bn to charity – fewer people are giving.
Separately, there is evidence suggesting that the top one percent of asset owners and earners in our country give less than their counterparts in equivalent societies, such as New Zealand and Canada. Some have suggested that there is a £5 billion gap between giving in the UK and in those two countries.
Previous research has indicated an overall decline in the value of donations by the top one percent of earners, despite increases in their income. And the latest UK giving report, just mentioned, finds that that some of the least affluent parts of the UK are among the most generous.
In summary, by a number of metrics, it seems likely that while charitable giving is just about holding up, high net worth philanthropy is proving less robust.
But this challenging context provides for a once-in-several generations opportunity.
For while there may be huge challenge, there is also huge potential, right now, for a new era of philanthropy to tackle our most intractable social challenges. We have the opportunity to resource and re-ignite the potential of our communities, through a renewed collaborative approach between our amazing charitable sector, corporate donors, philanthropists, communities and government.
The potential of philanthropy lies not just in the immediate financial boost it might offer the individual charities.
But in the agility and flexibility, the innovation and creativity it can encourage, inspire and unleash.
I think, as a nation, it is time to re-embrace the long and proud history of philanthropic impact, revive it, unleash it and celebrate it for our times.
I speak from personal experience as to the benefits philanthropy can bring.
I grew up in Liverpool in the 1980s. The city was then in post-industrial decline, and it felt in many ways forgotten and neglected by many. It had, arguably, lost its sense of purpose.
Today my home city is transformed. And that transformation happened through a combination of philanthropic investments, national and local government investment, alongside renewed community action notably in the arts, culture and tourism which acted as catalysts for wider renewal.
Financial and cultural investment in Liverpool in turn led to an expansion in higher education provision, an influx of international students and therefore an increasingly skilled workforce.
Liverpool is now in the process of a next phase of transformation. National non-governmental bodies have moved their HQs to the city, and life science industries are investing. Things are moving and changing thanks to that initial spark provided through philanthropy.
It shows that philanthropy and charity is ever evolving and finding new models, new ways to deliver real and lasting impact. That philanthropy and charity are not just about handouts, but hand-ups and start-ups, with the power to unleash peoples’ and communities’ potential.
To return to arts and culture, a sector that is now highly reliant on major gifts and sponsorships.
The Donmar, for example, lost its council funding in 2022. Now, any work that is not revenue generating must have its costs covered by fundraising. Corporate sponsorship has stepped in and is helping to ensure that the Donmar can continue to invest in its talent development programmes – providing paid traineeships to those underrepresented in the arts industry – and its community work in Camden and Westminster, offering free engagement programmes to over 5,000 young people every year.
Great charitable work, only possible now thanks to philanthropy.
Of course, philanthropy alone cannot make a city or a community, or reverse a social ill. But it can act as a spark that re-ignites hope and confidence and gives a community the confidence to revive itself, and to unleash its potential to adapt to changing economic, political and social circumstances.
The mechanisms for this particular role of philanthropy are varied.
First, philanthropists can do what other funders – notably public sector funders – cannot.
They can take risks and innovate, work out new solutions to deep-rooted problems by trying and testing.
They can support charities’ core costs, helping them develop long-term viability and stability, rather than living only from one grant to the next.
And philanthropists can sow seeds – offering large, one-off donations that allow new charities to get off the ground, or established charities to plan for the long term.
So again, whilst there are challenges, there is much to recognise and celebrate.
For example, I am moved to see corporate philanthropy combine with public generosity, community campaigning, media engagement and political interest – as well as support from the Charity Commission – to breathe new life into Zoe’s Place in Liverpool.
The charity provides end of life hospice care to babies and young children, bringing children and their families comfort and relief in incredibly challenging circumstances. It had faced closure in Liverpool, due to the spiralling costs of new accommodation.
Together, campaigners raised £6m in a month before Christmas, allowing the charity to continue.
It was an amazing effort, that would not have been possible without philanthropic contributions.
Similarly, I am deeply impressed with the work of the Moondance Foundation. Founded in 2010 by Diane and Henry Engelhardt, the charity has given away a remarkable £145 million, most of which has gone to support and strengthen communities in Wales, which is the family’s chosen, adoptive home. In December last year, we visited small community organisations in Port Talbot, Swansea, and Bridgend that have all benefited from this extraordinary generosity.
Their example shows that love of a place, responsibility and commitment to a community is a matter of heart, not necessarily heritage.
I would also like to mention here the work of the late Julia Rausing, who sadly passed away last year, leaving an immense legacy of generosity and kindness. She was an example to others, not just in how much she helped give away, but how – her sense of urgency and oversight ensured funds, where needed, were swiftly dispatched and carefully accounted for.
Or the musician Stormzy, who has given back of his wealth and influence to promote education and opportunity among young people.
And I must mention the Commission’s own board member Rory Brooks, who recently donated £2m to the Global Development Institute at The University of Manchester. He will not thank me for including his example here, but in his absence, Rory – if you want to promote philanthropy, you must let us celebrate your own example.
I know many in the philanthropy world have been wondering what Orlando’s departure as Chair later this year means for our work in this area.
First, I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution Orlando has made to public discourse on philanthropy during his time in office.
Orlando has used his authority and his voice as Chair of the Charity Commission to ensure philanthropy is seen and understood as one of the solutions to the urgent issues of our day.
And he has made a compelling case for the responsibilities and opportunities the Commission has to convene public debate on this issue.
So I know many in the world of philanthropy and beyond are very sorry to see Orlando move on from the Commission.
But let me make very clear.
The work he began will continue.
I, and the Commission’s Board, are determined to deliver on the commitment made in our corporate strategy to encourage trusteeship and amplify donor and philanthropic confidence through our work.
I am bound by them, not just by professional duty, but by personal conviction. A regulator must enable, encourage, unleash as well as enforce.
I am grateful to Rory Brooks, as I’ve mentioned a remarkable philanthropist in his own right, who as a member of the Commission’s board is spearheading much of this work.
Rory’s diligent commitment over the past two years has borne much fruit.
I am convinced that his quiet powers of persuasion have contributed to a changing public discourse on philanthropy.
A renewed understanding, on all sides of the political divide, that private wealth, voluntarily given, is part of the solution to some of the most entrenched of our social ills.
The new government has demonstrated its interest in philanthropy, particularly in geographical areas that are struggling to attract funding. We heard earlier from Minister Peacock about the government’s commitment to producing a place-based philanthropy strategy, more details of which we expect to hear about over the coming months.
But for our own part, what are we collectively doing at the Commission to promote philanthropy?
First, we have a role in ensuring, and demonstrating, that the UK remains among the best and safest places to give.
We have a robust, long-established regulatory infrastructure, which ensures transparency – not least through the accounting framework – and which gives donors confidence that there is oversight over the funds that charities receive.
That infrastructure stretches beyond the work of the Commission alone – other principal regulators, such as the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the Office for Students, play an important role in regulating vital sub-sectors in the field of culture, arts and heritage, as do auditors and independent examiners working to regulatory requirements.
In that context, the UK is also a centre of excellence for professional services – we boast among the best lawyers, financial advisors and wealth managers in the world.
There is room for more active input from these professionals in promoting philanthropy.
In the legal world, especially, there is an opportunity for those advising on transactions involving significant assets to actively introduce and encourage philanthropic considerations.
But overall, the system we have in place means philanthropists from all over the world, can have confidence in investing their goodwill and generosity into UK based charities – many of which, of course, operate globally.
Second, we help trustees understand their legal duties and sustain and improve their charities’ governance.
Last year, we published guidance supporting trustees to make the right choices on accepting, refusing and returning donations. That guidance reflected the law in being explicit about the starting point that charities should accept donations.
It is for trustees to make decisions as to what is in their charity’s best interests. Sometimes, trustees may well conclude that they should not accept a philanthropist’s support. But we wanted our guidance to be clear that the law assumes donations to charities to be generally a good thing.
We wanted to support trustees to say yes to donations where, having carefully weighed up the relevant factors, it is in their charity’s best interests – even where it might be contentious or controversial for some.
And I think that reminder is salutary at the present time, given the challenging financial context I set out earlier.
The last thing I want to see on my watch at the Commission is charities – including world leading arts and cultural organisations which have long benefited from philanthropic generosity – finding they can no longer operate successfully, because donations are withheld for fear of being rejected.
So I encourage those giving – whether individual philanthropists or corporate donors – to continue to do so even when there may be those who disagree with such donations from a point of personal principle or conviction. It is the benefit of democracy that we can disagree while still each exercising our individual freedoms and still do good for charity, our communities and those most in need.
To help enable this, we hope our guidance will inform a giving culture, but also a receiving culture, that allows for constructive discussion in the best long term interests of charity.
Thirdly, the Commission maintains, to our knowledge, the most complete and comprehensive charity data set anywhere in the world. Although this presents its own challenges, we’re also keen to recognise the opportunities for collaboration with partner organisations.
Over the last 18 months, Rory has led two summits focusing on the Commission’s data, our ongoing digital projects, and how we plan to help the sector make more informed funding decisions.
I know, for instance, the impact that digitisation of charity accounts will have for those working with charity data and that is why it remains such a priority for us.
These summits give us fascinating insights into how the philanthropy sector uses, and would like to use, charity data. In the near future we will see an early outcome of this work, with new data drawn from charities’ annual returns on the value of their single largest donation received during that year.
This data over time will not just provide useful insights in to trends in philanthropy, but will, I hope, serve as inspiration to existing and potential philanthropists to give with heart and confidence.
A final aspect of the Commission’s role that I am especially keen to promote is that of convenor.
We have a unique ability to help bring together the sector, government, philanthropists and donors as well as experts such as our hosts Beacon and the Charities Aid Foundation to consider, together, how we can encourage those with great wealth to choose the UK as a place to leave a legacy.
It has begun with the work I mentioned on data, but we want to go further and identify other focus areas, bringing together those with the passion and capability to drive progress. Specifically, we are keen to continue to work alongside other players to support government and other policy makers to ensure giving is incentivised and celebrated.
So in conclusion, despite the challenges, I believe we have a generational opportunity to revive and reignite our proud history of philanthropic giving for a modern age.
To build on the many recent examples of joined up action, be it placed-based or issue-based, which sees philanthropy, community, business, media, politicians come together to unleash potential, solve issues or spark renewal.
It is the power of that collective action, that joined-up approach to today’s challenges, that this generation of philanthropists and charities can use to continue to achieve the seemingly impossible, to improve the lives of many and unleash the spark of hope, innovation and opportunity.
As the CEO of the Commission I promise you we will be there beside you, playing our part, enabling you to do the amazing things you do for the benefit of society.
We at the Commission will also help ensure that this growing band of philanthropists feel proud of their achievements, and use our platform to shout about them – encouraging others to follow suit. So to all of you who give, to those professionals that advise and support giving – thank you – never under-estimate the impact you have – and the opportunity you enable.
Thank you.
Published 12 February 2025
Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the President of the European Council, António Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, met in Brussels, Belgium, on February 12, 2025. They highlighted the close relationship between Canada and the European Union (EU), which is underpinned by a Strategic Partnership Agreement and a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The leaders discussed the importance of working together to promote global economic security and stability. They highlighted the strong trade and investment relationship between Canada and the EU, and agreed on the importance of renewing efforts to advance and diversify trade.
They emphasized the importance of Canada-EU co-operation – including in the context of Canada’s G7 Presidency – to address current opportunities and challenges in a complex, competitive, and unpredictable world.
Together, Canada and the EU will continue supporting an inclusive, rules-based multilateral system anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter, and uphold the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of borders as fundamental tenets of international law.
In the run-up to the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the leaders reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to resist Russia’s unjustifiable war of aggression. They spoke about developments in the Middle East, particularly in Gaza and Syria. They welcomed last month’s ceasefire and hostage release agreement between Israel and Hamas, calling on all parties to implement it, and underscored their commitment to a two-state solution. They also stressed the importance of an inclusive Syrian-led political governance structure.
The leaders discussed global trade, including expected tariffs by the United States. They also discussed other shared priorities and agreed to remain in close touch.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Louisville, Colorado, Feb. 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — CEA Industries Inc. (NASDAQ: CEAD, CEADW) (“CEA Industries” or the “Company”), today announced that it has signed an agreement to acquire Fat Panda Ltd. (“Fat Panda”), a leading Canadian retailer and manufacturer of nicotine vape products, for an aggregate purchase price of CAD $18 million (USD $12.6 million) payable at closing. The Company will pay the purchase price with a combination of cash, CEA Industries common shares, and seller and bank debt. The structure of this accretive acquisition is designed to have minimal dilution to CEA Industries’ shareholders.
Fat Panda is central Canada’s largest retailer and manufacturer of e-cigarettes, vape devices and e-liquids, with a market share exceeding 50% in the region. The company operates 33 retail locations, including 29 Fat Panda stores and four Electric Fog vape outlets, in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Fat Panda also serves a wide range of customers through its online e-commerce platform. Its retail footprint is complemented by a comprehensive portfolio of products, including its own line of premium e-liquids manufactured in-house, along with a robust portfolio of trademarks and intellectual property.
Since its inception in 2013, Fat Panda has established a strong foundation that has fueled its growth in the vape industry and has positioned the Company for sustained expansion. By strategically locating retail stores in high-traffic areas and developing a robust e-commerce platform, Fat Panda has achieved broad market reach and customer accessibility. Its in-house product development also enables a diverse and cost-effective product portfolio that adapts to evolving consumer preferences. Additionally, Fat Panda benefits from strong supplier partnerships and management expertise in navigating complex regulatory frameworks, which reinforces its operational resilience and compliance. Given the continuity of management at Fat Panda, combined with the leadership and financial strength of CEA Industries, the Company believes Fat Panda is well positioned for continued success and further growth and profitability.
“CEA Industries has long been active in the Canadian market, and we are pleased to take the next step in our evolution with this acquisition of Fat Panda, marking our entrance into the high-demand Canadian vape industry,” said Tony McDonald, Chairman and CEO of CEA Industries. “Fat Panda’s market leadership in central Canada, supported by its network of 33 stores and a vertically integrated product portfolio, reflects a solidified business with strong fundamentals and a proven track record of double-digit revenue growth, consistent profitability, and positive cash flow. By combining our expertise and resources with Fat Panda’s established operations, we plan to accelerate its expansion and deepen its presence in the Canadian market to create long-term, sustainable value for our shareholders.”
CEA Industries plans to leverage its balance sheet and the market position of Fat Panda to support the strategic expansion of Fat Panda’s retail and wholesale operations. This includes acquiring additional store locations and launching de novo stores, allowing the Company to reach untapped markets and improve accessibility for its customers. Further, CEA Industries intends to scale Fat Panda’s manufacturing operations, which produce house-brand and white-label vape products for other retailers. The Company believes these strategic initiatives will enable it to build on Fat Panda’s solid foundation, accelerate growth, and enhance profitability and operational excellence.
The acquisition will continue the employment of the current management and of the production and retail staff, for the uninterrupted, continuous operations of the business. Certain of the senior management persons will enter into employment agreements for their continued employment after the closing of the acquisition.
The Company expects to complete the acquisition in the first half of 2025, subject to certain customary closing conditions described below.
For more information, please reference the Company’s 8-K filed today, February 12, 2025, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Acquisition Disclaimers
Completion of the acquisition is subject to a number of conditions, which include the preparation of the Fat Panda companies and delivery of audited and unaudited interim consolidated financial statements, satisfaction of the financial condition of Fat Panda, completion of due diligence by the Company, receipt of all necessary government approvals and licenses, and continuation and reformation of the various retail location leases. Completion is also subject to the Company obtaining financing for a portion of the cash purchase price. The acquisition agreement also provides for the selling persons to make representations and warranties and undertake certain covenants about many aspects of the business of Fat Panda that shall be true and correct and performed at or prior to closing. The representations, warranties and covenants are those that are typical in relation to the acquisition of an operating business. The Company has also made certain representations, warranties and covenants, the principal one of which is to obtain financing for a part of the purchase price, which if not obtained will permit the Company to terminate the purchase agreement.
About CEA Industries Inc.
CEA Industries Inc. (www.ceaindustries.com) provides a suite of complementary and adjacent offerings to the controlled environment agriculture industry. The Company’s comprehensive solutions, when aligned with industry operators’ product and sales initiatives, support the development of the global ecosystem for indoor cultivation.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release may contain statements of a forward-looking nature relating to future events. These forward-looking statements are subject to the inherent uncertainties in predicting future results and conditions. These statements reflect our current beliefs, and a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in this press release, including the factors set forth in “Risk Factors” set forth in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and subsequent filings with the SEC. Please refer to our SEC filings for a more detailed discussion of the risks and uncertainties associated with our business, including but not limited to the risks and uncertainties associated with our business prospects and the prospects of our existing and prospective customers; the inherent uncertainty of product development; regulatory, legislative and judicial developments, especially those related to changes in, and the enforcement of, cannabis laws; increasing competitive pressures in our industry; and relationships with our customers and suppliers. Except as required by the federal securities laws, we undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The reference to CEA’s website has been provided as a convenience, and the information contained on such website is not incorporated by reference into this press release.
Investor Contact:
Sean Mansouri, CFA
Elevate IR
info@ceaindustries.com
(720) 330-2829
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin
As the deadline approaches for the end of phase one of the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, the likelihood of the agreement making it to the scheduled second phase on March 1 look increasingly remote. Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, addresses the key questions.
Even before Donald Trump’s proposal for the clearing and redevelopment – what would amount to the ethnic cleansing – of Gaza, an agreement to move from phase one to phase two at the start of March was an increasingly remote possibility.
We almost did not have a first phase. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had held out against a deal for months, and he was under pressure from two hard-right ministers – finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir – not to proceed.
In the end, Netanyahu acceded because of families seeking the return of their relatives held hostage by Hamas, and because of an approach by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff.
Smotrich stayed in the cabinet while Ben-Gvir left but his party said it would continue support for the government. However, both demanded that there be no second phase. They called instead military action to eradicate Hamas and the resettlement of the population of GAza – voluntary or otherwise.
In the next phase, the Israeli military is supposed to withdraw fully from Gaza while Palestinian governance is restored in the Strip. Israel and the US will demand that Hamas will leave power – indeed, the Israelis may call for Hamas leaders to leave the territory – and Hamas will refuse to do so.
Trump’s demand for an end of “occupation” of Gaza, not by the Israelis but by Gazans, confirmed the demise of the process. There is no chance that Hamas negotiators will agree to a “solution” in which most if not all residents are evicted.
That is why Trump, using the pretext of Hamas obstruction of phase one, stopped portraying himself as a “peacemaker” on Monday. Instead, he proclaimed: “All bets are off and let hell break out” — in effect, returning to a blank cheque for Israel’s military action, blockade of humanitarian aid, and mass killing across Gaza.
Many media outlets have been negligent in excusing Trump’s statements by saying alternatively that he is not serious or that he is “thinking outside the box” with his egregious statements.
Trump’s proposal for “development” of Gaza, clearing out the population, was not just a thought bubble. In his first term, he repeatedly spoke of North Korea’s “great beaches” and “waterfront property” as a prime location for condos and hotels. In March 2024, his son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to the Middle East, saying: “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable… From Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.”
Last summer, the Trump team asked Joseph Pelzman, a professor of economic and international affairs at George Washington University to propose a plan for the Strip. He summarised: “You have to destroy the whole place, you have to restart from scratch … It requires that the place be completely emptied out. I mean, literally emptied out.”
Within a week of returning to the White House on January 20, Trump was telling reporters that Gaza’s civilians should be removed from the “demolition site”. Just over a week later, alongside Netanyahu, he expanded on the declaration – reportedly in a statement written by Kushner.
Trump’s proposal is a clear violation of international law. The Geneva conventions stipulate that civilians should not be transferred outside of their territory unless it is “impossible” to do otherwise.
UN spokesman Stéphane Dujarric told reporters: “Any forced displacement of people is tantamount to ethnic cleansing.”
But, the Trump administration does not appear to care about international law. Two days after his appearance with Netanyahu, Trump signed an executive order sanctioning the International Criminal Court.
Indeed, the administration does not believe it should face any legal oversight in the US. As Trump and Elon Musk attempt to destroy US agencies, with mass firings and seizure of records that may be unconstitutional and illegal, the US vice-president, J.D. Vance, maintains: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Trump, demanding the impeachment of a judge who ruled against the unauthorised access to records, said: “No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision.”
Absolutely not, especially if Trump tries to fulfil his declaration that the US should “own” Gaza. Apart from Israel, no country has given support to Trump’s proposal. And most Americans, even Trump backers, would be loath to have “ownership” which required intervention by US troops.
As for the countries Trump wants to send Palestinians to, they are vehement in their opposition. Within hours of Trump’s February 4 statement, he got a firm rebuttal from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh cited “the Kingdom’s firm and supportive positions on the rights of the Palestinian people” and reinforced its recent shift to “firm and unwavering” support of a Palestinian state.
The foreign ministry emphasised that this was the position of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and noted his phone call with King Abdullah of Jordan as a sign of solidarity.
After Netanyahu said the Saudis “have plenty of territory” for a Palestinian state, Riyadh denounced the “extremist, occupying mentality” that seeks to expel Palestinians from Gaza.
Egyptian foreign minister Badr Abdelatty told US secretary of state Marco Rubio on Monday in Washington that Arab states rejected Trump’s pitch. Abdelatty stressed the importance of Gaza’s reconstruction while Palestinians remained there.
And, on the eve of King Abdullah’s visit to Washington, Jordan expressed its “rejection of any attempts to annex land and displace the Palestinians”.
Trump and the Israelis will now shift attention to Hamas as an existential threat who cannot be treated as a partner in a phase two ceasefire.
Phase one is due to expire on March 1. I predict that Israel will return to its open-ended war across Gaza, probably sooner than that.
And Trump, who only recently presented himself as a “peacemaker”, will give unconditional backing – while bemoaning that Gazans, up to 90% of them displaced from their homes, still won’t leave the Strip.
Scott Lucas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Will the Gaza ceasefire hold? Where does Trump’s takeover proposal stand? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/will-the-gaza-ceasefire-hold-where-does-trumps-takeover-proposal-stand-expert-qanda-249751