Everything posted by Vesper
-
lol Palace (Eze) missed a pen horrid pen one of the worst of the season
-
Mbappe goal chalked off
-
weakest Real Madrid bench I have seen in 15 plus years only 3 remotely decent players are the 39 and 2/3rds years old Modric and the not (atm) convincing youths Endrick and Guler all the rest (5) are rubbish
-
https://www.vipleague.pm/champions-league/internazionale-vs-bayern-munich-1-live-streaming https://www.vipleague.pm/champions-league/internazionale-vs-bayern-munich-2-live-streaming https://redditsoccerstreams.org/event/inter-fc-bayern-munchen/1510788 https://soccer-100.com/event/uefa-champions/bayern-vs-inter-milan-live-soccer-stats/733615 https://sportshub.stream/event/іntеr_bаyеrn_munісh_287282334/
-
https://www.vipleague.pm/champions-league/real-madrid-vs-arsenal-1-live-streaming https://www.vipleague.pm/champions-league/real-madrid-vs-arsenal-2-live-streaming https://redditsoccerstreams.org/event/real-madrid-arsenal/1510787 https://soccer-100.com/event/uefa-champions/arsenal-vs-real-madrid-live-soccer-stats/733612 https://sportshub.stream/event/rеаl_mаdrіd_rm_аrsеnаl_287282333/
-
1 nil NUFC Murphy
-
Newcastle United vs Crystal Palace https://www.vipleague.pm/epl/newcastle-united-vs-crystal-palace-1-live-streaming https://www.vipleague.pm/epl/newcastle-united-vs-crystal-palace-2-live-streaming https://redditsoccerstreams.org/event/newcastle-united-crystal-palace/1508334 https://soccer-100.com/event/eng-1/c-palace-vs-newcastle-live-soccer-stats/704560
-
Rumor claims Trump will declare martial law on April 20. Here's what we know https://www.yahoo.com/news/rumor-claims-trump-declare-martial-230800902.html Online users shared a rumor claiming U.S. President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 on April 20, 2025, followed by him declaring martial law. The Insurrection Act grants U.S. presidents the power to deploy the military into states for civilian law enforcement. To share the rumor, users copied and pasted the text from the first (archived) in a series of articles written by a Medium.com blogger only identified by the handle of Aletheisthenes. The rumor partly pertained to a Trump executive order issued on Jan. 20 declaring a national emergency at the southern U.S. border. Part of that order requested Trump to receive a joint report from the secretaries of defense and homeland security "within 90 days" — or by April 20 — advising "whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807." The order did not explicitly mention the words "martial law." While Aletheisthenes, the author of the series of articles, featured at length a wealth of data about Trump's past actions, as well as information about the Insurrection Act of 1807 and martial law, this rumor existed more as a prediction than a provable claim. The Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the White House did not yet respond to emailed requests for comment. In April 2025, online users shared a rumor claiming U.S. President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and then declare martial law — a declaration of rule enforced by military authorities. According to numerous posts, this sequences of events would begin on or just after April 20, the same day as Easter Sunday. For example, one Facebook user posted, in part, "He's setting us up for Martial Law....just in case y'all were wondering how he plans on dealing with the backlash he's receiving. April 20." Another user sharing the rumor, also noting former German dictator Adolf Hitler's birthday as April 20, wrote, in part, "Upcoming MAGA special events... April 20. Trump declares martial law in The United States of America." The mentions of April 20 pertained to a Jan. 20 executive order declaring a national emergency at the southern U.S. border. One part of the order said that the secretaries of defense and homeland security would issue a joint report "within 90 days," meaning by April 20. It further stated that the report would include guidance about "whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807." The order did not explicitly mention the words "martial law." As of this writing on April 11, this rumor existed more as a prediction than a provable claim. Searches of the websites for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the White House yielded no announcements, statements or demonstrable evidence that might help to shed light on the unproven matter. Those entities did not yet respond to emailed requests for comment. Breaking down the martial law rumor Users on Bluesky, Facebook, Reddit and other social platforms shared the rumor either in their own words or as a lengthy block of copied-and-pasted text. That text originated from a March 21 article (archived) reported on the publishing platform Medium.com. The author did not self-identify in any other way other than by the handle Aletheisthenes. (Angela Woodward/Facebook) Aletheisthenes' article — the first in a series (archived) of stories titled, "The Coup Playbook: How They Quietly Kill the Constitution and Democracy in the Coming Weeks and Months" — began with, "On April 20, 2025, the United States may initiate its final steps into authoritarian rule." In the article, Aletheisthenes predicted several supposed chronological steps following the invocation of the act and martial law, including "expanded martial law" following violent false flag operations at otherwise peaceful protests, arrests of journalists and politicians, military takeovers of major U.S. cities, press censorship, closed borders and postponed elections. The author ended the article, "If we don't act before April 20, then by April 23, it will already be too late." Subsequent articles in the series featured Aletheisthenes discussing many other matters related to the predictions, including for example advising (archived) readers to prepare for the worst by buying survival supplies, water and food, and to "beat the rush," "go fast" and "go now." In another article, the author asked (archived) readers to use artificial-intelligence (AI) platforms to "check my math." Interviewing Aletheisthenes By email, the author who made the predictions answered several questions regarding the primary claim examined for this story — one positing Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and then declare martial law. The author also was presented with a legal article that seemed to contradict the blog posts. That article (archived) by Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, states the Insurrection Act does not authorize martial law. "The term 'martial law' has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency," Nunn wrote on the matter in 2022. "By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law." When presented with Nunn's article, Aletheisthenes said, in part, that "Trump has a history of testing what he can and can't do." The blogger also added, "Trump is on record on wanting to declare martial law several times during his [first] administration," and that his "guardrails" from his first administration "are gone." A search for information about Trump previously considering declaring martial law located a Dec. 19, 2020, article from The New York Times. The reporting said Trump discussed the idea of declaring martial law to "rerun" the election he had just lost, during an Oval Office meeting occurring on Dec. 18. Trump tweeted (archived) in response, "Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!" Trump also previously threatened in June 2020 to send federal forces to quell protests and violence following the death of George Floyd, a matter involving invoking the Insurrection Act. Aletheisthenes also answered a question about changing the word "will" to "may" in the headline of the first article. The headline originally read, "On April 20th, 2025, the United States will Cross the Point of No Return." The blogger answered, in part, "I decided to tone it down," citing a person who called the blogger "a malicious propagandist giving paranoid nutjobs nightmare fuel." When asked about whether Aletheisthenes purchased survival supplies — the advice the blogger gave to readers in Part Four (archived) of the series of articles — Aletheisthenes answered, "Yes. I've never been a prepper before. But I did something different: I'm in a better financial position than many, and I actually ordered 6 months of survival rations and a pretty serious water filter. I figure we'll be feeding the neighbors. "My intentions are good, at least in my own mind. Actually, I don't think I've ever done anything more important in my life, trying to get the word out and save our Constitution ... although it may already be too late. But at least if things go bad I know I tried. And maybe in some way I've gotten more people talking about it. And maybe by talking about it... it'll stop it from happening. And I just look like a crazy man. Which ... I can live with." A representative for Nunn, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice, did not yet reply to an emailed request for further comment. Insurrection Act of 1807 The Library of Congress hosts the original text of the Insurrection Act of 1807 on Page 443 (archived) of legislation pertaining to the Ninth Congress. As of 2025, the act exists in its amended form in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. (The Trump-issued executive order from Jan. 20 specifically featured the words "Insurrection Act of 1807," rather than generally referencing the matter as the "Insurrection Act.") The original text from 1807 read as follows: President Thomas Jefferson, in office from 1801 through 1809, introduced the act in response to fears that his former vice president, Aaron Burr, might incite a rebellion or insurrection after Jefferson replaced him for Jefferson's second term in the White House. Nunn reported for the Brennan Center that "the Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid from President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating Black motorist Rodney King." The Brennan Center published a list of the many other times U.S. presidents invoked the Insurrection Act. Sources: "10 USC Ch. 13: INSURRECTION." U.S. Code, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim. "Aaron Burr." Thomas Jefferson Foundation, https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/aaron-burr/. "Acts of the Ninth Congress." Library of Congress, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c9/llsl-c9.pdf. Archive.today. https://archive.is/. "Declaring A National Emergency At The Southern Border Of The United States." The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/. "Definition of FALSE FLAG." Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false+flag. Haberman, Maggie, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs. "Trump Weighed Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel." The New York Times, 19 Dec. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html. Hauser, Christine. "What Is the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Law Behind Trump's Threat to States?" The New York Times, 2 June 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/article/insurrection-act.html. Nunn, Joseph. "Guide to Invocations of the Insurrection Act | Brennan Center for Justice." Brennan Center for Justice, 21 Apr. 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-invocations-insurrection-act. ---. "Martial Law in the United States: Its Meaning, Its History, and Why the President Can't Declare It." Brennan Center for Justice, 20 Aug. 2020, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/martial-law-united-states-its-meaning-its-history-and-why-president-cant. ---. "The Insurrection Act Explained." Brennan Center for Justice, 25 Apr. 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained. "Martial Law | Definition & Facts." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/martial-law. The Conversation. "Can the President Really Order the Military to Occupy US Cities and States?" Snopes, 3 June 2020, https://www.snopes.com//news/2020/06/03/can-the-president-really-order-the-military-to-occupy-us-cities-and-states/. Vladeck, Steve. "Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, Here's What a U.S. President Can and Cannot Do." The Washington Post, 19 June 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/19/under-insurrection-act-1807-heres-what-us-president-can-cannot-do/.
- 16,144 replies
-
- governments
- laws of countries
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
a big win..................... UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female Judgment is a victory for gender-critical feminist campaigners — and a blow for transgender rights activists. https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-supreme-court-rules-woman-means-biological-female-trans-gender-recognition/ LONDON — Britain’s highest court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said as he delivered his judgment on Wednesday. It will be seen as a landmark victory for gender-critical feminist campaigners who have long argued biological sex is immutable, and a blow for transgender rights activists. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the provision of single-sex spaces and other gender-specific public services across Scotland, England and Wales. The long-running legal challenge was brought by the For Women Scotland campaign group — who argue sex is biological, binary and can’t be changed — against the Scottish government. The case dates back to 2018 when the Scottish administration, led by then-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, passed legislation to establish gender quotas to get more women serving on public boards. It was eventually amended to count trans women with gender recognition certificates, confirming their female gender, as women for the purposes of the legislation. Scottish courts ruled, and then upheld in the Scottish government’s favor, that sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex,” and must include those in possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC). But that was challenged in London’s Supreme Court by campaigners. And, in its ruling Wednesday, the country’s highest court said the meaning of the terms “sex,” “man” and “woman” in the U.K.’s Equality Act must refer to “biological sex” — with any other interpretation deemed “incoherent and impracticable.” The summary of the court ruling read: “Therefore, a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect.” Trans rights campaigners had warned that if the court deemed a Gender Recognition Certificate insufficient to change one’s sex in the eyes of the Equality Act, then transgender people would lose protections they have against discrimination. Hodge stressed that the ruling should not be seen as the triumph of one group over another, and pointed out that the Equality Act still gives protection to transgender people “not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.” ‘Clarity and confidence’ The U.K government said the ruling had brought “clarity and confidence” for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” a spokesperson said in a statement following the ruling. Scottish First Minister John Swinney — who has largely steered clear of gender issues since taking the reins of the ruling Scottish National Party last year — meanwhile said his administration “accepts today’s Supreme Court judgement.” “The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster,” he said. “We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.” But Vic Valentine, manager of advocacy charity Scottish Trans warned the decision “undercuts the central purpose of the Gender Recognition Act.” They added: “We note that the court took interventions from a number of organizations that have campaigned to restrict trans people’s rights, but refused to hear from a single trans person, in a case that is all about trans people. “We think their judgment reflects the fact that trans people’s voices were totally missing.”
- 16,144 replies
-
- governments
- laws of countries
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Fashion /16 April 2025 26 Summer Hits At Mango Just like the fruit, Mango is at its best in summer. This year, the high-street label has linens for the warmest days, safari jackets and knitwear for cooler evenings, and refined eveningwear for weddings. Here’s our pick of the crop… https://slman.com/style/fashion/26-summer-hits-at-mango
-
STYLE A Smart, Grown-Up Watch Of The Week Tissot PRX 40mm 🖤 T137.410.17.041.00 Diameter:40 mm 316L stainless steel case Swiss Quartz movement Scratch-resistant sapphire crystal Interchangeable quick release bracelet https://www.tissotwatches.com/en-gb/T1374101704100.html If you are looking for a slim, smooth watch with an authentic ‘70s feel, look no further than the PRX line. Created for those with an eye for design, the PRX brilliantly pairs twenty-first century features with a Tissot case shape from 1978. Discover this 40mm version with its deep blue dial and black rubber strap, for a sporty and vintage look.
-
they had 3 massive chances Donnarumma with 2 wondersves, and then Konsa missed a wide open net header, he completely missed the superb cross from Rashford
-
FT Barca go thru 3 5
-
FT PSG go thru 4 5 agg
-
2 crazy games
-
would now be 4 1 Dortmund 4 5 agg but the goal is chalked off
-
3 1 Dortmund 3 5 agg Guirassy hat trick
-
2 1 Barca have scored OG by Dortmund 2 5 agg
-
Villa are ALL over them PSG's decade plus long problem is they have ALWAYS collapsed under real pressure deep into the CL
-
Emery sorts a tonne of troubled players out he is a masterclass manager so wish we had pulled him instead of cunt Maresca
-
3 2 PSG collapsing 4 5 agg
-
insane save by Donnarumma