MPs Urge Rejection of the Legislation Following Proposal to Replace High Court Judge Oversight

A major controversy has erupted over proposed amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill, as Labour MP Kim Leadbeater announced plans to remove the requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted death applications. The change has sparked a backlash, with critics arguing that it undermines the safeguards originally intended to protect vulnerable individuals.

Leadbeater, who is behind the legislation, suggested that psychiatrists and social workers would play a larger role in evaluating applications for assisted death, as part of a new Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission. The commission would be led by a senior legal figure, possibly a former judge, but would no longer involve direct High Court involvement in the decision-making process.

Several MPs, including Labour’s Diane Abbott, have voiced strong opposition, calling for the bill to be voted down. Abbott described the removal of the High Court judge safeguard as the collapse of essential protections, labelling the legislation as rushed and poorly considered.

Tim Farron, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, also criticised the move, stating that many MPs had supported the bill in its initial stages under the belief that stronger safeguards would be added later, only to see these safeguards eroded. Conservative MP Danny Kruger echoed these concerns, pointing out that the High Court approval, which was initially sold as a key safeguard, has now been replaced by a private panel without judicial oversight.

The Law Society had previously raised concerns that the original safeguards were insufficient but had questioned the role of the courts due to resource limitations. In response to the amendments, the Society warned that more detailed records of why assisted deaths are approved should be required and that regulations should be publicly consulted and reviewed regularly.

Leadbeater has defended her proposal, stating that the involvement of professionals like psychiatrists and social workers will ensure that decisions are made with proper attention to the patient’s capacity to make a voluntary choice. She also pointed to the importance of keeping the process simple, as advised by England’s chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, to avoid bureaucratic delays for patients with terminal illnesses.

The bill, if passed, would allow adults with terminal illnesses in England and Wales to seek assisted death, with approval from two doctors and, under the original proposal, a High Court judge. However, the latest amendments suggest a shift away from judicial oversight, with Leadbeater emphasising that this change would make the system more robust and responsive.

As the bill proceeds through the legislative process, MPs on the committee will conduct a detailed review starting this week. No date has been set for the bill’s return to the House of Commons, but it is expected to be debated again in April.

The U.S. foreign aid agency could shrink from 10,000 employees to under 300 amid sweeping budget reductions.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is on the brink of a major downsizing, potentially cutting its workforce from around 10,000 to fewer than 300 employees globally. This drastic reduction follows significant budget cuts under the Trump administration, which has placed most employees, including those stationed abroad, on administrative leave as part of a broader cost-cutting initiative.

Affected staff will be notified that they are being placed on leave starting at midnight Friday, with only a small number of essential workers remaining. A notice on the agency’s website indicates plans for the return travel of employees and the termination of non-essential contractors. Of the current workforce, only 294 individuals have been identified as essential, according to one of the unions representing USAID staff.

These cuts, which are backed by President Trump’s advisor Elon Musk, have caused disruptions to global aid programmes, with many already frozen in multiple countries. Public opinion has shown increasing scepticism regarding foreign aid, particularly among Republicans, where a March 2023 AP-NORC poll revealed that as many as 90% felt the U.S. was overspending on foreign assistance.

The United States is the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid, with a presence in over 60 countries. Much of its efforts are carried out through contractors, making the proposed cuts even more consequential. The reduction in USAID staff would severely impact the agency’s ability to deliver critical services worldwide, something former USAID Administrator Brian Atwood has called “outrageous.” Atwood warned that such a move could devastate the agency that has saved millions of lives.

Unions representing USAID employees, including the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), have filed a lawsuit against the plan, which they argue is unconstitutional. The suit claims that the dismantling of USAID is not authorised by Congress and violates federal law. The lawsuit demands the immediate appointment of a new acting director for USAID, the reopening of its facilities, and the restoration of its grants and contracts, among other actions. It also seeks a judicial halt to the implementation of the plan, citing the urgency of resuming vital aid programmes.

According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration’s actions have resulted in a global humanitarian crisis, halted crucial aid operations, and jeopardised American jobs and national security. Thousands of USAID employees are set to be affected, with a formal notice confirming the leave for all direct hire personnel starting at 11:59 PM EST on Friday.

Despite the cuts, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the administration’s position, assuring USAID workers in Guatemala that the U.S. would continue its foreign aid efforts, though he emphasised that these initiatives must align with U.S. national priorities.

The UK’s new US ambassador expresses regret over ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but lashes out when questioned further.

Peter Mandelson, Britain’s newly appointed ambassador to the United States, erupted in anger when questioned about his past connection to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. The former Labour minister, known for his forthright manner, took issue with the persistent focus on his relationship with the disgraced billionaire.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mandelson, 69, expressed regret over his meeting with Epstein, which occurred when he was introduced to the financier by his former partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell,” Mandelson stated, adding, “I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.”

However, when pressed further on the topic, Mandelson lost his composure, telling the Financial Times team, “I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly, you can all f*** off. OK?”

Maxwell, Epstein’s long-time associate, is currently serving a prison sentence for her role in recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein. A 2019 internal JPMorgan report, which was later revealed in a New York court filing in 2023, also referenced Mandelson’s close relationship with both Epstein and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.

Mandelson’s diplomatic appointment has faced scrutiny even before he took office. There had been reports suggesting that former President Donald Trump was considering blocking his nomination, creating a significant diplomatic hurdle for UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. Despite these concerns, Mandelson remains confident about his ability to work effectively with the Trump administration, insisting he was not the “ultra-liberal” figure many perceived him to be.

“I’m not a wokey-cokey sort of person,” Mandelson stated, adding that his pro-market, pro-business stance would resonate with Trump’s team. He also revealed that former US President George W. Bush had given him the nickname “Silvertongue” due to his diplomatic negotiation skills.

Mandelson’s outburst regarding Epstein followed his recent shift in tone towards President Trump. Just days after Trump approved his appointment, Mandelson retracted earlier remarks calling Trump a “danger to the world” and expressed newfound respect for the president. “I think he has won fresh respect, certainly from me,” Mandelson said, stressing that this respect would underpin his work as ambassador.

In discussing Trump’s potential for a second term, Mandelson remarked, “I think he could become one of the most consequential American presidents I have known in my adult life,” suggesting his disruptive style could lead to significant change.

US President Suggests American Control Over Gaza, Ignites International Criticism

In a highly controversial press conference held in the White House’s East Room, President Donald Trump unveiled a proposal that shocked the world. During his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the US president suggested that the United States could take control of the Gaza Strip, claiming that the region would benefit from American development. His remarks set the stage for what many are calling a dangerously expansionist vision, revealing a more aggressive phase of Trump’s political ambitions.

Trump, who had previously prided himself on an “America First” agenda, shocked the room when he declared, “We will take over Gaza, and we’ll do a job with it, too. We’ll own it.” The statement left many speechless, as the president, notorious for his real estate background, appeared to treat the region as just another property to develop. His comments have been widely condemned as a form of ethnic cleansing, with critics noting that Trump’s proposal comes off as a business venture rather than a humanitarian solution.

The president’s plan for Gaza was detailed in bizarre terms, with him describing the region as “an unlucky place” that had endured a “miserable existence” for too long. He even suggested relocating 1.8 million Palestinians to new territories, funded by wealthy neighbouring nations. His assertion that Gaza could be developed into a “spectacular” international destination stirred further concerns about his intentions, with many fearing that his approach could exacerbate the region’s crisis.

Trump’s remarks have raised alarm globally. He proposed turning Gaza into a “world-class” hub, describing the potential for vast economic development, with jobs and international recognition. But the plan is far from a solution, as it disregards the complex political and humanitarian issues surrounding Gaza. His vision of transforming the area into what he called “the Riviera of the Middle East” underlined his consistent tendency to view political matters through a business lens, reminiscent of his earlier ventures in New York real estate.

Despite his claims of creating jobs and prosperity, many questioned the legitimacy and feasibility of such a proposal. Critics have pointed out that Trump’s history of business failures, legal challenges, and scandals raises doubts about his ability to manage such an ambitious undertaking. The idea of American military involvement in Gaza also sparked fears of further conflict and destabilisation in the region.

Netanyahu, standing by Trump, called the proposal “worth paying attention to,” while heaping praise on the president for his unwavering support of Israel. In contrast, Democratic voices, including Senator Chris Murphy, labelled the idea as reckless, with Murphy stating, “He’s totally lost it.”

As Trump continues to push his vision for Gaza, his rhetoric and policies are rapidly diverging from traditional diplomatic norms. The world now watches as Trump embarks on what many fear could be a dangerous expansionist path that could alter the geopolitical landscape in unprecedented ways. Whether this is a fleeting fantasy or a step towards a new world order remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Trump’s ambitions are reaching beyond the borders of the US.