Ever found yourself religiously following the lives of people you’ve never met on social media?The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
Author: alaskaadmin
This was the biggest nationalist rally in recent memory – perhaps ever.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
Experts have described engravings left on ammunition at the scene of the Charlie Kirk shooting as “extremely online” – so what do the words and symbols actually mean?The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
The UK’s business secretary has told Sky News those who attacked and injured police officers at a march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson “should and will pay a price” for their violence.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
A renowned pharmacologist and expert witness in the Primodos drug scandal has been unmasked as a fraud – by his daughter.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
By: Grace Dumas, News of the North
NOTN- Conservation group Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) and local advocates like Juneau for Democracy are urging Alaskans to speak out against a federal proposal that could roll back long-standing protections for millions of acres in the Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest.
The call to action culminated as Alaskans from Juneau to the organized village of Kake, rallied at the downtown whale statue, where they gathered in solidarity to oppose the Trump administration’s renewed attempt to rescind the federal roadless rule.
The roadless rule, adopted in 2001, bars large-scale commercial logging, mining, oil and gas development and road construction on 58.5 million acres of national forest land across the United States. In the Tongass alone, the protections cover 9.3 million acres of old-growth forest that support subsistence, recreation and some of the state’s most profitable industries.
“It was a rule process that involved the public for many years to get support, it was by far one of the biggest public participation events on a federal document in the history of the United States.” Said Nathan Newcomer, Federal Campaigns Manager of SEACC, “1.6 million people submitted comments on this rule-making process back in 2001, and the vast majority was support, it was 96% of Americans who wanted to see the Roadless Rule put in place.”
The Trump administration attempted to eliminate the rule once before, which triggered widespread public opposition before former President Joe Biden reinstated the protections.
The administration has now revived the effort, this time under an accelerated timeline.
A notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on Aug. 29, opening a public comment period of just 21 days, far shorter than most federal rulemaking processes. That window closes in less than a week.
“Initially it was only going to be 14 days that the public could comment on this document. That’s unheard of, It’s unprecedented. ” Said Newcomer, “They gave us an extra week, So they gave us 21 days.”
The window for public comment closes on September 19th.
Advocates say tribal voices have been sidelined in the process. The Organized Village of Kake, a federally recognized tribe, has led opposition to the rollback since the early 2000s. President Joel Jackson from the Organized Village Kake and President Mike Jones from the Organized Village of Kasaan joined Saturday’s rally in Juneau.
“We’ve been battling all this since time’s first contact,” said Áakʼw Ḵwáan Tribal spokesperson Fran Houston, “this was our land, this was our territory, and it was taken away from us. And now, hundreds of years later, here I am standing on the grounds of my ancestors, trying to protect what they had. we were forced to live in two worlds.”
“This is the home of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people, and to cut them out of the process is reprehensible.” Newcomer said, “I can tell the audience that the US Department of Agriculture was supposed to hold a tribal consultation online Zoom meeting with tribal governments, and then they canceled at the last minute and never rescheduled it. So what does that tell you?”
In a commentary article published by the Alaska Beacon, Ariel Hasse-Zamudio, public advocate with Juneau for Democracy and the Director of Alaska Energy Infrastructure, wrote, “For thousands of years, the Tongass National Forest has provided for the people and wildlife who have lived below its canopies and along its shorelines. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule are the delicate habitats that allow the rest of the forests to thrive. Resource development, while sometimes necessary, almost inevitably changes or destroys habitats essential to the flora and fauna humans depend on.”
Tourism and fishing, two industries closely tied to the health of the Tongass, contribute billions of dollars annually.
According to Newcomer and Hasse-Zamudio, commercial fishing generates more than $6 billion a year, while tourism adds more than $5 billion.
“Without this protection, the other parts of the forest that are able to be managed for logging and mining, won’t be healthy enough for us to even be able to use those resources.” said Hasse-Zamudio, “So this is also about the health of the entire forest, even the parts that are managed for resources.”
For now, the focus is on generating public comments before the deadline. As of this article, more than 86,000 comments have been submitted nationwide.
“It is a specific action everyone can take to elevate their voice and be a part of the democratic process, because it is work to be a citizen in a democracy, and this is how you participate.” Said Hasse-Zamudio.
Saturday’s protest included cultural performances, speakers from tribal governments and conservation groups, and a message of solidarity.
“Because we do live and work in this sacred land, and we need to stand up for it with one solid voice.” Said Newcomer.
Public comments can be submitted through the Federal Register under ‘Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands.’
For more information about the Roadless Rule, visit the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council website.
The day after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, commentators repeated a familiar refrain: “This isn’t who we are as Americans.”
Others similarly weighed in. Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” declared that Americans solve political disagreements peacefully: “This is not the way we do it.”
Yet other awful episodes come immediately to mind: President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on Nov. 22, 1963. More recently, on June 14, 2025, Melissa Hortman, speaker emerita of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was shot and killed at her home, along with her husband and their golden retriever.
As a historian of the early republic, I believe that seeing this violence in America as distinct “episodes” is wrong.
Instead, they reflect a recurrent pattern.
American politics has long personalized its violence. Time and again, history’s advance has been imagined to depend on silencing or destroying a single figure – the rival who becomes the ultimate, despicable foe.
Hence, to claim that such shootings betray “who we are” is to forget that the U.S. was founded upon – and has long been sustained by – this very form of political violence.
Bettman/Getty Images
Revolutionary violence as political theater
The years of the American Revolution were incubated in violence. One abominable practice used on political adversaries was tarring and feathering. It was a punishment imported from Europe and popularized by the Sons of Liberty in the late 1760s, Colonial activists who resisted British rule.
In seaport towns such as Boston and New York, mobs stripped political enemies, usually suspected loyalists – supporters of British rule – or officials representing the king, smeared them with hot tar, rolled them in feathers, and paraded them through the streets.
The effects on bodies were devastating. As the tar was peeled away, flesh came off in strips. People would survive the punishment, but they would carry the scars for the rest of their life.
By the late 1770s, the Revolution in what is known as the Middle Colonies had become a brutal civil war. In New York and New Jersey, patriot militias, loyalist partisans and British regulars raided across county lines, targeting farms and neighbors. When patriot forces captured loyalist irregulars – often called “Tories” or “refugees” – they frequently treated them not as prisoners of war but as traitors, executing them swiftly, usually by hanging.
In September 1779, six loyalists were caught near Hackensack, New Jersey. They were hanged without trial by patriot militia. Similarly, in October 1779, two suspected Tory spies captured in the Hudson Highlands were shot on the spot, their execution justified as punishment for treason.
To patriots, these killings were deterrence; to loyalists, they were murder. Either way, they were unmistakably political, eliminating enemies whose “crime” was allegiance to the wrong side.
US Supreme Court
Pistols at dawn: Dueling as politics
Even after independence, the workings of American politics remained grounded in a logic of violence toward adversaries.
For national leaders, the pistol duel was not just about honor. It normalized a political culture where gunfire itself was treated as part of the debate.
The most famous duel, of course, was Aaron Burr’s killing of Alexander Hamilton in 1804. But scores of lesser-known confrontations dotted the decade before it.
In 1798, Henry Brockholst Livingston – later a U.S. Supreme Court justice – killed James Jones in a duel. Far from discredited, he was deemed to have acted honorably. In the early republic, even homicide could be absorbed into politics when cloaked in ritual. Ironically, Livingston had survived an assassination attempt in 1785.
In 1802, another shameful spectacle unfolded: New York Democratic-Republicans DeWitt Clinton and John Swartwout faced off in Weehawken, New Jersey. They fired at least five rounds before their seconds intervened, leaving both men wounded. In this case, the clash had nothing to do with political principle; Clinton and Swartwout were Republicans. It was a patronage squabble that still erupted into gunfire, showing how normalized armed violence was in settling disputes.
Gun culture and its expansion
Bob Grieser/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
It is tempting to dismiss political violence as a leftover from some “primitive” or “frontier” stage of American history, when politicians and their supporters supposedly lacked restraint or higher moral standards. But that is not the case.
From before the Revolution onward, physical punishment or even killing were ways to enforce belonging, to mark the boundary between insiders and outsiders, and to decide who had the right to govern.
Violence has never been a distortion in American politics. It has been one of its recurring features, not an aberration but a persistent force, destructive and yet oddly creative, producing new boundaries and new regimes.
The dynamic only deepened as gun ownership expanded. In the 19th century, industrial arms production and aggressive federal contracts put more weapons into circulation. The rituals of punishing those with the wrong allegiance now found expression in the mass-produced revolver and later in the automatic rifle.
These more modern firearms became not only practical tools of war, crime or self-defense but symbolic objects in their own right. They embodied authority, carried cultural meaning and gave their holders the sense that legitimacy itself could be claimed at the barrel of a gun.
That’s why the phrase “This isn’t who we are” rings false. Political violence has always been part of America’s story, not a passing anomaly, and not an episode.
To deny it is to leave Americans defenseless against it. Only by facing this history head-on can Americans begin to imagine a politics not defined by the gun.
Maurizio Valsania 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.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Taylor Swift is wading into the ongoing legal war whether she likes it or not.
From the start, she seemed to want no part of Justin Baldoni’s courtroom campaign against Blake Lively.
However, she has agreed to some conditional testimony in the still-ongoing lawsuit.
Is she going to drag Lively in her deposition? We’ll find out very soon.
Taylor Swift will be getting involved in the legal battle, after all
According to Page Six, court documents show that Taylor Swift has agreed to provide evidence in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s massive legal battle.
However, the singer’s deposition will be conditional.
Baldoni’s legal team must first persuade the court to extend the testimony deadline.
The report details that Baldoni’s attorney insisted to the judge that they had not requested “a blanket 30-day extension of the discovery cut-off date.”
Instead, the lawyer clarified:
“Wayfarer Parties requested an agreement solely to take the deposition of Taylor Swift during the week of October 20-25 due to Ms. Swift’s preexisting professional obligations.”
There is a reason for Swift’s reticence. Aside form the messiness of all, her new album comes out on October 3. She’s pretty busy hyping up The Life of a Showgirl until that date.
What could she have to contribute?
Last winter, Justin Baldoni name-dropped Taylor Swift in his lawsuit, claiming that Blake Lively had effectively done just that by referring to Swift as her “dragon” and protector.
See, after having filed complaints about Baldoni, Lively sued him for sexual harassment and for retaliation.
There was an alleged smear campaign against her, as many may recall.
Baldoni’s massive lawsuit was thrown out in court, on the grounds that retaliatory lawsuits are illegal.
It has been Baldoni’s contention that he and Lively clashed over creative differences while making It Ends With Us, stirring up drama that has not, in fact, ended with them.
Though they do not officially being their trial until spring 2026, it seems to be Baldoni’s contention that Lively concocted allegations against him in order to push her version of the film.
Or to keep him from publicly complaining about their creative differences? It’s unclear.
Regardless, Lively contends that he was unprofessional and inappropriate. And she is not the only woman to have filed a complaint about Baldoni or about his production company.
What could she possibly have to say?
To be clear, Taylor Swift had a very limited involvement in the film itself.
She permitted the use of My Tears Ricochet. That’s it.
Neither Baldoni nor Lively seem to dispute that. But Baldoni is claiming that Lively used her friendship with Swift to intimidate him.
In October, we’ll find out if a deposition from Swift will tip the scales one way or the other.
But, ultimately, this doesn’t seem to be about her.
Taylor Swift to Give Evidence in Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively Suit was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Prince Harry has had a busy week.
As previously reported, the polarizing figure reunited with his father on Thursday after about 19 months, spending an unspecified time in London opposite King Charles.
But that wasn’t the only major stop Harry made on his trip overseas.
On Friday, the Associated Press confirms that this member of The Royal Family actually stopped over in Ukraine to visit with wounded service members who have been fighting that country’s ongoing battle with Russia.
Specifically, Harry touched down in the capital city of Kyiv.
This visit marked the second time Harry has visited Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full scale invasion in 2022. He also made a trip to the western city of Lviv in April.
“We cannot stop the war but what we can do is do everything we can to help the recovery process,” Harry told the Guardian newspaper while on an overnight train to Kyiv.
The father of two has some experience in this area, of course.
A British Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, Prince Harry is the founder of the Invictus Games, a Paralympic-style event designed to inspire military veterans around the world as they work to overcome battlefield injuries.
Ukraine is actually bidding to host these games in 2029.
Relatedly…
Harry, The Archewell foundation set up by Harry and his wife Meghan Markle announced this week that it had donated $500,000 to projects supporting injured kids from Gaza and Ukraine.
The money will be used to help the World Health Organization with medical evacuations and to fund work developing prosthetics for seriously injured young people.
Earlier this year, meanwhile, Harry expressed hope that he and Charles could one day get on better terms following years of estrangement over his and Markle’s battle to restore security protection in the United Kingdom.
“There have been so many disagreements, differences between me and some of my family,” Harry told BBC in May.
“This current situation that has been on our ongoing for five years with regard to human life and safety is the sticking point. It is the only thing that’s left.”
Prince Harry Visits Wounded Soldiers in Ukraine was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 4 minutes
On Friday morning, President Donald Trump revealed that a suspect had been arrested in connection with the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University.
By Thursday night, the FBI had apprehended 22-year-old Tyler Robinson in connection with the shooting.
Now, the media and general public are eagerly dissecting all available information about Robinson in search of a possible motive.
What were Tyler Robinson’s political beliefs?
Robinson, a third-year student in Dixie Technical College’s electrical apprenticeship program, is registered as an “unaffiliated” voter, meaning he’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Newsweek reports that Tyler’s parents, Amber and Matt Robinson, are both registered Republicans.
All signs point to a fairly standard middle-class, suburban upbringing, but there are indications that Robinson had become politically radicalized in recent years. But his beliefs are difficult to pin down.
Several X users have pointed to signs that Robinson was a fan of the “Groyper Army,” which Wikipedia defines as “a group of alt-right, white nationalist, and Christian nationalist activists led by Nick Fuentes.”
Many have speculated that Robinson wished to involve himself in the Groypers’ campaign against mainstream Republicans, but it’s too soon to arrive at any specific conclusions about the alleged shooters’ beliefs.
Fuentes is a controversial figure on the far-right, who, in the past, had criticized Kirk for being too moderate in his views and messaging.
In the wake of this week’s shooting, Fuentes took to social media to mourn Kirk and call for an end to political violence.
“I am devastated. It feels like a nightmare that we’ll never wake up from,” he wrote, adding, “The violence and hatred has to stop. Our country needs Christ now more than ever.”
On September 12, Fuentes urged the White House to release more information about Robinson:
“We need more from the Trump administration than what we’re getting,” he wrote on X (via Newsweek), adding:
“Release all the information about the assassin and his Discord contacts. Everyone must be investigated. Tell us the plan. How will the government stop this from ever happening again? Where is the leadership???”
Again, it’s far too early to make any generalizations about Tyler Robinson’s ideology or the state of his mental health.
It’s human nature to try and sense of such a tragedy, but it might be impossible to do so even once all the facts are in (and at this point, we still know very little).
Robinson’s Discord activity receives scrutiny
Robinson’s roommate reportedly shared his Discord account with the authorities, but despite initial claims that Tyler posted about violent crimes on the streaming platform, a spokesperson for the company says no such content has been discovered.
“In the course of our investigation, we identified a Discord account associated with the suspect, but have found no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord,” the rep tells TMZ.
“The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages. These were communications between the suspect’s roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere.”
Needless to say, there’s still a great deal that we don’t know about the alleged shooter.
What we do know is that as a young, middle-class, cisgender male, he fits the profile of the average mass shooter, a fact that might make his motives more difficult to discern.
“Not Black. Not Trans. Not Muslim. Not an Immigrant. Not a Democrat. Meet Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson. A white Christian, Conservative, Republican male with a gun … again,” actor Billy Baldwin wrote on X (according to TooFab).
“Charlie Kirk’s assassin Tyler Robinson, 22, killed him because he hated his opinions and thought he was a fascist. Yet ironically, HE was the fascist, killing someone to silence their opposing views. The woke left love to say ‘speech is violent.’ It’s not – violence is,” journalist Piers Morgan remarked on the platform.
Meghan McCain quickly racked up thousands of likes with a post that read simply, “Death penalty.”
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Tyler Robinson’s Discord Page, Alleged ‘Groyper’ Affiliation Spark … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip