Author: openjargon

• Squatters are residing in one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants in London.
• The squatters hung a "legal warning" on the restaurant's window, arguing their right to remain.
• Local authorities told BI they're "aware" of the situation and will "take action when appropriate." 

Squatters have taken over one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants in London.

At least six people are residing in York & Albany, an eatery connected to the eponymous hotel in Camden Town, according to The Sun and BBC. York & Albany is temporarily closed while Ramsay, 57, finalizes a new lease, The Sun reported.

It's unclear when the squatters first arrived. Metropolitan Police told Business Insider they "were made aware of squatters at a disused property" on April 10 in Regents Park, where the restaurant is located.

The outlets reported that the group had locked themselves inside the building, boarded up the windows, and are threatening legal action against those attempting to remove them.

Photos obtained by the outlets showed a "legal warning" taped to one of the restaurant's doors. It was signed by "The Occupiers."

"Take notice that we occupy this property and at all times there is at least one person in occupation," the notice reads. "That any entry or attempt to enter into these premises without our permission is therefore a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to such entry without our permission."

The legal warning said the group will to take legal action against those who "enter by violence" or "threaten to enter by violence."

The notice read, "LASPO does NOT apply," referring to the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment Offenders Act. Under LASPO, occupying a non-residential building is not a crime. So the squatters are claiming the law allows them to be there.

Ramsay called local authorities about the property but has so far failed to have the squatters removed, the outlets reported.

Metropolitan Police in London told Business Insider that this issue "is a civil matter and so police did not attend as an emergency call out. However we in the process of identifying if any subsequent offences have occurred, and will take action where appropriate."

While it's unconfirmed what the group intends to do with the space, BBC reported that two Instagram accounts — Autonomous Winter Shelter and Camden Art Cafe — have described it as a "new squatted community space."

"Pop down to a new squatted community space in Camden," a post's caption read. "Come on down and say hi, grab some food and a coffee on our first day open tomorrow."

Camden Art Cafe's Instagram also appeared to share photos of the restaurant's interior.

"An autonomous cafe in the heart of Camden committed to providing free food and creating a space for the community," the bio read.

Ramsay became attached to the property in 2007 when director Gary Love leased it to him on a 25-year term with a yearly rent of £640,000, or about $797,000, the outlets report. Ramsay tried to get out of the lease in 2015 but lost the legal battle.

The property was listed in late 2023 with a guide price of £13 million, or more than $16 million, according to the outlets.

Representatives for Ramsay and York & Albany did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

Other stories about squatters have made headlines this year.

In New York City, a couple cannot move into the $2 million home they purchased because of a squatter who refuses to vacate the property. The couple sued the squatter to evict him, but he countersued for harassment.

Outlets reported later that month that squatters had lived in a Beverly Hills mansion for five months. The group was evicted but did not face any criminal charges.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/FNeSAYC
via IFTTT

• Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is considering how to respond to Iranian drone strikes on Israel.
• Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles on Saturday night.
• There are fears the conflicts in the region could increase further.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must weigh up the implications of escalating the conflict in the Middle East as he mulls Israel's response to Iran's attack, experts say.

Israel's air defenses, with support from the US, UK, French, and Jordanian militaries, intercepted 99% of the more than 300 drones and missiles launched by Iran on Saturday night, the Israeli military said.

A small number of ballistic missiles did still reach Israeli territory.

Iran launched the attack in response to Israel's bombing of an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus earlier this month, which killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers.

Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, responded to the killings by warning that the "Zionist regime will be punished."

But while some believed Iran may carry out a "symbolic" attack, experts say it went much further.

And depending on how Israel and Iran move forward, the countries may risk taking their yearslong shadow war into an open, regional conflict.

"I don't think that we're past the point of no return, but I think we're in a new, kind of uncharted territory, and everything now depends on how the different actors decide to operate," Mairav Zonszein, a senior Israel analyst with the International Crisis Group, told Business Insider.

"This was a very dangerous attack, that could easily have ended with us discussing the war to come, rather than whether Israel will respond or not," Michael Horowitz, a geopolitical expert and security analyst, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

In another post, he argued that the attack was not symbolic, as some had suggested, as Iran had attempted to "overwhelm Israel's air defenses."

Zonszein agreed that the attack "wasn't symbolic" but told BI "it was calibrated in the sense that it was a larger and more powerful response" than people in Israel had anticipated.

"It's a very precarious situation," Zonszein continued. "There are conflicting views on whether Israel should respond. A lot of military analysts and former officials are saying 'Israel was able to defend itself. This is a win. And we should stop here and leverage the support that Israel has gotten.'"

Shashank Joshi, the defense editor of The Economist, told LBC that the hope now is that because the attack was so "calibrated" and had "such little lethal effect," Netanyahu can confine himself to striking Iranian facilities or personnel without launching a full-out attack on the Iranian regime.

In spite of the minimal damage caused, the implications of Iran's actions are difficult to ignore, as it marks the first time the Islamic Republic has directly attacked the Jewish state.

"At no point previously had Iran directly struck Israel in a way that violated its sovereignty, meaning directly on Israeli soil. So, while Iran may now say that the issue is closed, it would be very surprising to see the Israelis not feel the need to respond, given the extent of the escalation," Carmiel Arbit, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, told BI.

Iran has since warned Israel and its allies against a counterstrike, saying it would launch an even larger attack if they retaliated.

Some Sunni Arab states could unite against Iran

How Israel chooses to respond is now in the hands of Israel's war cabinet, which consists of Netanhayu, defense minister Yoav Gallant, and former army general Benny Gantz.

Gantz has already said that Israel will "exact a price" from Iran when the time is right, per the BBC.

But the cabinet runs a serious risk of both escalating the conflict in the region and jeopardizing support from its allies, particularly from the US.

Prior to the attack, President Joe Biden said the US would "do all we can to protect Israel's security" while avoiding further escalation.

And the president has since warned Netanyahu that the US would not collaborate in any Israeli counterattacks against Iran, US officials familiar with the matter have said, per CNN.

Meanwhile, Arbit said Iran's unprecedented action could unite some Sunni Arab states against it.

"I think what was particularly interesting yesterday is that we saw Iran violate the airspace of a number of different Arab countries, including Jordan, who then participated in the response. So, on the one hand, I think you see where a coalition of moderate Sunni states find themselves, in a very tangible way, united in their interests in curbing the threat posed by Iran to the region."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/60jxKfB
via IFTTT

• Iran launched a barrage of exploding drones and missiles at Israel on Saturday.
• The attack was a response to an Israeli strike against Iran on April 1 in Damascus.
• Iran telegraphed its response, warned everyone ahead of time, and avoided civilian targets.

Iran fired hundreds of exploding drones and missiles toward Israel on Saturday.

It was a response to Israel's attack on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus on April 1, which killed multiple high-level Iranian commanders.

Iran's retaliation might sound like a lot. But Iran knows all too well about Israel's Iron Dome and its other air defense systems, which intercepted many of the incoming projectiles. US and British aircraft, US warships, and Jordanian forces also shot down some of the estimated 300 aerial threats.

Iran also warned everyone for weeks that the attack was coming — giving Israel's allies time to prepare — and avoided targeting civilian locations.

"Iran's done enough to be seen as credibly responding to Israel's Damascus strike last week," Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, wrote on X. "While sufficiently limited and telegraphed to avoid significant Israeli (or US/allies) escalation in response."

And then, as soon as the attack was over, Iran said it was done. Iran called it "a limited operation."

It was a response aimed at demonstrating its capabilities and saving face while — its government hopes — avoiding further escalation.

But the scale of the barrage also increased the likelihood that some of the strikes would make it through and, indeed, some of them did, although initial reports say they caused little damage.

"Iran very much tried to overwhelm Israel's air defenses," Michael Horowitz, an analyst and head of intelligence at security consultancy Le Beck International, wrote on X on Sunday. "The idea that this was just a symbolic attack, designed to fail, is wrong."

If one of the strikes had harmed any Israelis, Israeli officials would be forced to save face with their own escalation.

That last part is now up to Israel.

Will Israel retaliate against the retaliation?

Almost everyone's hoping it doesn't.

The United States, Israel's most important ally and the one who supplies many of the components that Israel's air defense systems use to protect itself, has asked them not to.

"Whether and how the Israelis will respond, that's going to be up to them. We understand that and respect that. But the president's been very clear: we don't seek a war with Iran," White House spokesman John Kirby said on NBC's Meet the Press.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not heeded US President Joe Biden's calls for de-escalation in recent months, straining relations between the two leaders.

Biden has repeatedly called on Israel to dial back its scorched-earth campaign in Gaza following the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas. Israel's retaliation for that assault has killed over 33,000 Palestinians and leveled much of the territory, plunging them into near famine.

The response has been so severe that much of the global goodwill Israel saw after the Hamas attacks dissipated — nowhere more clearly than in the executive branch of the US government.

Netanyahu is also facing serious challenges to his leadership at home.

On the day of the Iranian attack, thousands gathered in Tel Aviv to protest against Netanyahu's government. Many of them were families of hostages angry at Netanyahu's handling of the crisis.

Some Israelis have also publicly blamed Netanyahu's hardline policies for antagonizing Palestinians and Hamas. Netanyahu has dramatically expanded settlement activity, illegal under international law, in the West Bank, for instance.

How Israel will respond to this latest escalation is anyone's guess. Israel's national security minister called for a "crushing attack" on social media. But Benny Gantz, who is a member of the country's war cabinet, was more measured in his response, saying only that Israel would "build a regional coalition" and respond to the attack "in the manner and time that are appropriate for us."

Netanyahu said on Thursday, anticipating Iran's retaliation, that his country would be ready to respond.

"Whoever harms us, we will harm them," he said. "We are prepared to meet all of the security needs of the State of Israel, both defensively and offensively."

Israel and Iran have been at war for a while

While a direct attack on Israel is a major escalation, the two countries have been fighting each other for decades.

Iran's Islamic government has viewed Israel as an enemy since it seized control of the country in 1979. Israel had supported the old Iranian regime. Israel has since seen Iran as an existential threat.

Iran has long supported anti-Israel militant groups like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. For its part, Israel has conducted strikes against Iranian allies in Syria and worked to isolate Iran diplomatically, relying on its military rather than negotiations to try to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/hSKzPl1
via IFTTT

• Israel's Arrow 3 system helped intercept drones and missiles during Iran's retaliatory attack.
• Boeing helped develop the Arrow 3 system, which was funded largely by the US.
• Israel's chief military spokesman said Arrow 3 had  "proved itself" on Saturday. 

Israel intercepted the majority of the airborne drones and missiles Iran fired in its retaliatory attack on Saturday thanks to an advanced air defense system that Boeing helped develop.

Israel's Arrow 3 system — first deployed in 2017 — is the top level of its air defense network and is designed to intercept targets in space. The system was developed with significant funding from the United States and is a joint project of Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries and its subsidiaries, according to The New York Times.

Israel's chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, told reporters on Sunday that Arrow 3 had "proved itself against a significant number of ballistic missiles" that were fired by Iran.

Israel's defense ministry said in a fact sheet that "the Arrow-3 system's capabilities enable longer range, higher altitude (exo-atmospheric), and more precise ballistic missile engagements." It also noted that Arrow 3 has "state-of-the-art maneuverability," a "very short reaction time," and "hit-to-kill technology."

Arrow 3 is the successor to Arrow 2, designed to intercept targets in the upper atmosphere. The older system was first deployed in 2000 and was credited with intercepting a Houthi ballistic missile and a long-range rocket fired from the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war. Together, the systems comprise the top level of Israel's air defense network, which protects the country's territory from missiles, rockets, artillery, and drones.

Below the Arrow system is David's Sling, which engages medium- to long-range rockets and missiles at up to 185 miles. Under that is the Iron Dome, which can intercept several short-range artillery fire and rockets and is perhaps the best known of Israel's air defense systems.

Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/xvmgRXe
via IFTTT

• Bad reviews of the AI Pin point out how it can't replace a phone.
• But I don't want to replace a phone. I love staring at my iPhone.
•  I only regret that I cannot stare at my phone more hours of the day.

I was excited for the AI Pin, I really was. When the wearable device meant to replace a phone was announced this fall, I was slightly unsure of how normal people might use it, but I was stoked on the idea of a strange new category of gadget, something creative and ambitious and new.

Unfortunately, the reviews of the AI Pin so far have been dreadful. They point out that it simply doesn't work half the time, overheats, and generally fails at its biggest ambition: to be a screen-free replacement for your phone.

All the problems with the AI Pin aside (I recommend this review from The Verge if you're more curious), I keep coming back to the central thesis of the device — that you want a way to avoid looking at your phone — and scratch my head. Who says I don't want to look at my phone screen? I LOVE looking at my phone!

There are two arguments here: the practical and the existential.

The practical argument for a non-phone device that can do phone-like things is that you can accomplish simple tasks without getting distracted by the other notifications and temptations of a phone. I agree — that's a good thing. Setting a timer, composing a text while driving, getting a quick morning weather report — these are all things that are great use cases for not using a phone. Luckily, we've had voice assistants like Alexa and Siri that have existed for over a decade that already do that.

There's also the Meta Ray-Ban glasses that take video and photos —ideal for hands-free situations, like riding a roller coaster, dancing, or attending a concert. They're an objectively neat-o gadget, cool for certain uses, and their AI element will probably bring even more useful ways to use them. But I don't think they're attempting to replace your phone.

Joanna Stern of The Wall Street Journal used the AI Pin along with the Meta Ray-Bans on her recent family vacation and found that the wearable camera aspect was great for capturing quick moments with her kids. She was pleased not to have to take her phone out: "You know the dance. You take out your phone, snap a photo, then get distracted by some message or notification. It felt good to keep my phone in my backpack for most of these vacation excursions," she wrote.

That practical reason — a phone can be distracting when you just want to snap a photo — is very reasonable and relatable!

But then there's the other, more existential argument against phones: We are spending all our free moments with a screen shoved in our faces, mindlessly scrolling for dopamine and ignoring the world around us. Time spent on your phone is bad; time spent doing anything else is good.

This argument I just can't get on board with. I love mindless scrolling; I find it immensely enjoyable. I love flipping through TikTok, browsing tweets, poking around Reddit. I'll pop into the group chat. Maybe if I have some extra time, I'll go to my happy place and watch some movie trailers on YouTube.

I strenuously object to the idea that spending time away from your phone is somehow more virtuous. What am I going to do, go for a walk and stare at the trees? Do you have any idea how many articles there are I haven't read?

I also object to the idea that, as a parent, I should neglect my phone to be more "present" with my family. I absolutely do spend periods of time during the day giving my undivided attention to each child — I am not a monster. But I do not think it's necessary to give ALL of your time as undivided attention to young children; they should be lightly ignored a little — it builds independence.

Frankly, I am not worried about not being present. I can multitask. I am capable of processing many inputs of attention at the same time; I'm running dozens of teraflops; my momcompute is so plentiful Sam Altman wants to get the UAE to invest in it. Glancing at my texts is not going to be the thing that pulls me out of being "present." I am never not present. And I bet that's true for you, too.

I concede that it does matter how parents model phone use to their children — it's not ideal to have a phone in your face all day and then try to convince a kid that they have to put down the iPad. There is a happy and healthy medium here. I'm not saying you should miss your child's first steps because you're tweeting, but I feel zero guilt whatsoever about checking email while watching "Frozen" for the 20th time.

There is a lot of concern right now about how phones could be affecting young people. The correlation between phones and teen mental health is debatable, but wanting to limit social media and screen time for teens and kids is very valid.

However, I am not a teenager. I am an adult. Do not confuse the conversations about phones being bad for 15-year-olds with phones being bad for grown adults.

The most straightforward part of the phones-are-bad-for-kids argument is that time spent on a screen would be much better spent on other things, like in-person socializing or sleep. This is very true for teens, and maybe it's a little true for adults, too. (Sure, I'd probably be better off with an extra 20 minutes of sleep.) But I'm a grown-up with a fully formed frontal lobe who has already shaped my social skills in my formative years.

The one advantage to being old now is that my phone can't hurt me. I can handle looking at Instagram and seeing my friends having a good time and simply feel happy for them. I can watch as much TikTok as I want and the only thing that happens is that now I know the teen slang words and learn about the lives of people I'd never meet in real life. Haha! Mindless scrolling only increases my powers.

I don't want to be rude, so I try to follow reasonable phone etiquette. I don't stare at my phone in a restaurant, a movie theater, or while talking to someone. I like my Apple Watch for this reason: It allows me to put away my phone in social situations without worrying I'll miss an important text or call. I appreciate that there are functions and situations where something other than a phone would be great.

But I don't want to replace my phone. I don't want to downgrade to a dumbphone as some act of reclaiming my attention from greedy tech companies. I don't think my consciousness will ascend to a higher plane if I could only tear myself away from the 2,000-nit light of my iPhone 14 Pro Max. As far as I'm concerned, the smartphone is the apex of humanity's achievement. I treasure it, I revere it, and I am thankful for it. I don't look at this amazing gift of the sum of human technology and think, "I'd be happier without it."

If anything, my only wish is if I could stare at my phone more.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/d8sc2ln
via IFTTT

• Both Biden and Trump view Georgia as a highly-coveted electoral prize in the 2024 election.
• In 2020, Biden narrowly won the swing state after years of GOP dominance on the presidential level.
• But Republicans are aiming to flip the state this year. And polling points to another close race.

In 2020, President Joe Biden's victory in Georgia was perhaps one of his most satisfying Election night victories as the state had long been reliably Republican on the presidential level.

Powered by a robust showing in the Atlanta metropolitan area, strong turnout with Black voters and young people across the state, and dual Senate races that boosted Democratic enthusiasm, Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes out of nearly 5 million ballots cast.

The state now boasts two Democratic US senators, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, after years of GOP dominance on the federal level.

But Republicans also won every non-federal statewide office in 2022, which included Gov. Brian Kemp's victory over his 2018 opponent, former state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. And the GOP retained control of the Georgia legislature.

So Georgia remains a highly-competitive swing state, with both Biden and former President Donald Trump hoping to win its 16 electoral votes.

Where does the race in Georgia stand less than seven months before the election?

Surveys point to a close race

A Wall Street Journal battleground state poll conducted in Georgia in March showed Trump with a scant one-point lead (44%-43%) over Biden among registered voters in a head-to-head matchup.

In a race between the two major-party candidates, Georgia gave Trump his narrowest advantage among the seven swing states that were polled, which also included Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Other recent surveys, including ones conducted by CBS News and Marist, showed Trump with leads of 3 points and 4 points, respectively.

According to the Marist Georgia Poll, the top issue among Georgians ahead of November is preserving democracy. It was cited by 25% of respondents as their top issue, and Biden eked out a one-point advantage over Trump on who would best handle the issue.

Immigration and inflation were the second- and third-most important issues for registered voters. Trump had the edge on those.

The Atlanta metro area is an electoral juggernaut

In 2020, Biden's statewide win was propelled by Fulton County, which is anchored by Atlanta, and the populous suburbs that surround the capital city. Several of these jurisdictions, including Cobb and Gwinnett counties, were once reliably Republican but have swung heavily toward Democrats on the federal level. Nearby Clayton, DeKalb, and Henry counties also went strongly for Biden.

These voting shifts have given Democrats a major opening in a state that as recently as 2012 was largely seen as out-of-reach for then-President Barack Obama during his reelection campaign.

In 2020, Biden easily won Fulton County (73% to 26%) over Trump and netted nearly 243,000 votes out of that one county alone, which went a long way in countering the then-president's strong showing in many of the state's exurban and rural areas.

Voter mobilization in the state's major population centers will be essential for Biden this year, especially given his early struggles in motivating many young and minority voters.

Will Republicans unite?

In last month's Georgia GOP presidential primary, Trump easily defeated his onetime opponent, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley.

Trump won more than 497,000 votes in the primary, compared to Haley's about 78,000 votes. But Haley still received about 20,000 Election day votes even though she exited the race a week earlier.

A bulk of Haley's voters came from the Atlanta metropolitan area, primarily in suburbs where Trump was tripped up by Biden in 2020.

And many of these voters weren't thrilled that Trump disputed his statewide loss in the aftermath of that election, which resulted in the then-president's efforts to pressure Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to help him overturn Biden's victory in Georgia.

Kemp and Raffensperger refused to aid Trump, and despite the former president's unsuccessful attempts to oust both men from office in 2022, they remain the highest-profile Republicans in state government.

The 2024 results in Georgia will be a huge test of the Trump-era GOP's staying power in what has become a true purple state.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/vM8hEyi
via IFTTT

• The college admission process concerns me as top colleges reinstate the SAT requirement.
• As a low-income minority student, I can't afford expensive resources like test prep and tutoring.
• I am striving to make my college application impressive without having the best test scores.

College applications are something that stays on my mind all the time. As a high school sophomore, I have taken every AP class that is offered by my school, gotten straight A's, and maintained a high GPA to ensure my work pays off come college decision day.

But even doing everything I can, I feel my fate is still uncertain and anxiety-inducing. Do I have enough clubs? Am I as impressive as some of my other high-achieving peers? Recently, a new concern has taken over my college apprehension: SATs.

In 2020, many top colleges made standardized testing optional for the college admission process due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in January, Yale and Dartmouth reinstated standardized testing — like the SAT and ACTs — as a requirement for college applications.

This change makes me increasingly worried about my chances at some of my dream schools — especially as a low-income, minority student.

I can't afford SAT prep

Being a low-income student, doing well on the SAT is not easily achievable because of how the exam is structured. To me, it seems like the exam measures your ability to beat the test instead of your knowledge of the material.

In order to do well on the exam, you have to prepare the test structure rather than the content. This means studying SAT strategies and having a plan of action ready for test day. From thousands of prep books to specialized tutors, many resources exist to help students do just that. The only problem is that these resources are completely out of my price range.

My low-income family cannot afford pricey preparation materials and private tutors, especially not for long periods like SAT prep requires. I am unable to seek help from my immigrant family because of their unfamiliarity with the wording and structure of the exam. Plus, my high school does not have the money to pay for test prep or afford high-caliber resources.

It is a culmination of these factors that makes me truly realize how much students in minority communities are held back from their academic goals.

It feels as if achieving an impressive score on the exam is still out of reach, no matter how hard I study. It's hard to cope with the fact that my application will be deeply affected by something I cannot control.

The SAT doesn't offer an equal playing field

It doesn't feel like an equal playing field. Unlike me, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds can afford the SATs because they have the resources to do well on the exam. I fear that my inability to afford prep will make my college applications look sub-par compared to my higher-income counterparts. My goal is to have an application that matches other high-caliber students, but I am not sure how I can do that with lower test scores.

However, I am not someone who easily gives up, especially on lifelong dreams. In recent months, I have begun working harder in my classes, extracurriculars, and SAT studies — through every resource I can find and afford.

At the end of the day, it seems that college admissions will always come back to money. For immigrant, low-income students like myself, it seems as if we always end up with the short end of the stick when it comes to our education and, more importantly, our futures.

But when my background becomes discouraging or admissions feel like they are taking over my life, I remind myself that it's not important that I attend a top college. It only matters why, and that is to fight for better opportunities for people like me.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/Wbvo6cI
via IFTTT

• A woman who suffered a brain injury after falling from a pier lost out on $750,000 in compensation.
• The judge said she had been "thoroughly dishonest" and dismissed her claim.
• Insurance fraud costs businesses insurers and consumers billions each year

A woman who suffered a brain injury after falling from a seaside pier lost out on $750,000 in compensation after she was found to be "thoroughly dishonest" in her claim, said a judge.

Kirsty Williams-Henry, 33, sustained multiple injuries after falling from Aberavon Pier in the UK in 2018 when she went to observe bioluminescent plankton that had been spotted in the sea.

While returning to the shore, she fell between 12 and 15 feet onto the rocks and sand below — there had not been any safety barriers along the pier.

She sued the pier's owner, Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd, for damages. She had sought more than £2.5 million ($3.11 million), the judge said.

The company responded, saying that it believed Williams-Henry was entitled to around £370,000 ($460,000), but that the claim should be dismissed as the claimant had been dishonest about the extent of her injuries and how they affected her daily life.

The Queen's Bench division's Justice Ritchie, in a ruling issued Wednesday, agreed: "I have come to the conclusion that both the claimant and her mother have been thoroughly dishonest in their presentation of the claimant's symptoms and disabilities and have sought to mislead clinicians, medicolegal experts and this court about the claimant's health, functioning, activities of daily living and her work abilities."

In the US, an estimated $308.6 billion annually is lost to insurance fraudulent insurance claims, according to Forbes. Healthcare insurance fraud (including Medicaid and Medicare insurance fraud) is the most common type, estimated at $105 billion annually.

In the UK trial held over 11 days in Cardiff last month, Williams-Henry said that she had not received proper rehabilitation since the incident and that she had "good days and bad days" because of her injuries, which caused her difficulties at home and work.

She denied ever lying about her injuries, with her mother, Christel Williams, claiming that her daughter had "no life" due to her conditions.

Justice Ritchie said that he would have awarded Ms Williams-Henry £596,704 ($743,000) in damages for her "genuine'"injuries but dismissed her claim as she was a "regular liar." 

Justice Ritchie concluded that Williams-Henry had suffered a "moderately severe" brain injury from the fall as well as skull and other bone fractures and went on to suffer from depression, anxiety, and mild post-traumatic stress disorder after spending eight days in intensive care.

But Ritchie said that "overall" he found Williams-Henry to have been "dishonest and manipulative," so he could dismiss the case.

'I know it looks like a large sum of money to deprive a genuinely injured person of, but Parliament sought to stamp out dishonesty, which is fundamental in personal injury claims, and the claimant has breached this law," he said.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/n4uqy5I
via IFTTT

• The US Navy has been criticized for posting a picture of a sailor firing a rifle with a rifle scope on backwards.
• The sailor, commander Cameron Yaste, had been firing at a naval target balloon.
• The Navy acknowledged the error and removed the picture.

The US Navy has been slammed on social media for posting a photo online of a sailor holding an assault weapon with its scope on backwards.

In an image posted to Instagram, which has since been deleted, commander Cameron Yaste, the captain of the USS John S McCain, could be seen holding the gun, which also had its scope's lens cap still attached.

The caption accompanying the photo read: "From engaging in practice gun shoots, conducting maintenance, testing fuel purity and participating in sea and anchor details, the #USNavy is always ready to serve and protect."

According to a press release from the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, the captain had been firing at a "killer tomato," a Navy term for a target balloon.

Viewers were quick to point out his mistake.

One X user wrote: "US Navy just killing it on Instagram" alongside laughing and crying emojis.

Another said: "U.S. Navy's Cameron Yaste (left pic) thinks he's gonna dazzle 18-year-olds into joining navy with cool photoshoot on board ship but forgot that his scope's mounted backward."

Mike Collins, a Republican congressman from Georgia, also weighed in on the photo, posting a photo on X, formerly Twitter, of a pistol with its barrel back-to-front.

"Navy's newly issued sidearm," he joked in the caption.

In a statement, the US Navy said, "Thank you for pointing out our rifle scope error in the previous post. Picture has been removed until EMI is completed!"

EMI, meaning "extra military instruction" is defined by the US Navy as "instruction in a phase of military duty in which an individual is deficient, and is intended for and directed towards the correction of that deficiency."

"It is a bona fide training technique to be used for improving the efficiency of an individual within a command or unit through the correction of some deficiency in that individual's performance of duty," the Navy says.

According to Yaste's official biography, he graduated from the Naval Post Graduate School with a Master of Science in Astronautics before going on to serve aboard ships such as the USS Bataan and the USS Hopper.

It says he has also won multiple awards, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/u9r8qKU
via IFTTT

• As the Titanic was the height of luxury in 1912, some celebrities had tickets for its maiden voyage.
• But not all of them ended up boarding the ship.
• J. Pierpont Morgan and Milton Hershey were among those who missed the disaster.

The sinking of the Titanic in April 1912 still captivates us today, with numerous books, a multibillion-dollar movie, museums, and, controversially, expensive tours of the wreckage available.

Interest in the ship led to another maritime tragedy last year when an OceanGate submersible went missing on the way to the wreckage and was eventually confirmed to have imploded, killing all five people on board.

In the aftermath, stories emerged about people invited to participate in one of OceanGate's trips but decided against it — much like, more than 100 years ago, how people were fascinated with those who had almost been on the Titanic.

Here are seven notable figures, some of whom were among the richest people in the world, who were supposed to sail on the Titanic's maiden voyage but didn't — and four well-known people who were booked to go on a future journey with the ship.

Milton Hershey, the founder of Hershey's, sent the White Star Line a $300 check to reserve a spot on the Titanic, but he ended up sailing home on the SS Amerika instead.

As they aged, Hershey and his wife, Catherine, spent their winters on the French Riviera. In December 1911, the couple left for another extended European vacation. For their return journey, Hershey wrote a $300 check from the Hershey Trust Company to the White Star Line to reserve places on the maiden voyage of the company's brand-new ship, the Titanic.

According to Lancaster History, pressing business matters forced Hershey to cut his vacation short, and he left Europe just days before the Titanic would set sail, instead heading home on a German liner called the Amerika, which would later warn the Titanic about the dangerous amount of ice.

Hershey's canceled check is still in the possession of the Hershey Community Archives, and you can view it online.

J. Pierpont Morgan — yes, J. P. Morgan himself — had a personal suite on the Titanic and had attended its launch party in 1911. But he extended his French vacation and missed the sinking.

"I've never been able to find an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason why J. P. Morgan canceled his passage on the Titanic," the Titanic expert George Behe told Reuters in 2021. Some speculated that the reasons were that he was in bad health or having issues with customs because of his art collection.

However, we know that Morgan, the cofounder of General Electric, International Harvester, and US Steel, was also the founder of the International Mercantile Marine, which in turn owned White Star Line. According to The Washington Post, he was even on hand to witness its 1911 launch.

"Monetary losses amount to nothing in life," Morgan told a New York Times reporter after the sinking. "It is the loss of life that counts. It is that frightful death."

Guglielmo Marconi, the Nobel Prize winner who invented the radio, opted to head to the US three days earlier on the Lusitania, forgoing a free ticket on the Titanic.

You might know that Marconi was considered a hero after the sinking of the Titanic because his invention, the wireless radio, helped ships in the surrounding area find where to look for the lifeboats.

But did you know he was almost on board the ship himself?

His daughter Degna wrote in her 1926 book, "My Father, Marconi," that he was offered a free ticket aboard the Titanic. But because his stenographer got seasick, Marconi opted to sail to the US on the Lusitania because he trusted that ship's stenographer more than Titanic's, Degna wrote.

Henry Clay Frick, the chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company, missed the sailing of the Titanic because his wife sprained her ankle in Italy and needed to be hospitalized.

Visitors to New York City might recognize Frick's name from the Frick Collection or the Henry Clay Frick House. He was an important industrialist and a patron of the arts — and he was close to sailing on the doomed voyage.

"The Fricks booked the suite first, and then Mrs. Frick sprained her ankle while they were in Europe buying art and touring and things; so, they stayed behind to get medical attention," the historian Melanie Linn Gutowski told CBS News Pittsburgh in 2012.

"The suite that they booked, that some historians think that they booked, was some kind of savior suite in a way," she continued. "Everybody who booked it managed to survive either by not being on the ship, or jumping into a lifeboat at the last minute."

Eventually, the tickets made their way to J. Bruce Ismay, the chairman and managing director of the White Star Line. Controversially, he was one of the few men who made their way onto a lifeboat and survived. He was criticized for this for the rest of his life.

Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt canceled his ticket on the Titanic at the last minute. He was on board the Lusitania when a German U-boat sank it in May 1915.

As a member of the prominent Vanderbilt family, Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt was a well-known member of New York society, so there was media coverage when it was revealed he'd narrowly escaped the Titanic.

Unfortunately, just a few years later, he was aboard the Lusitania, a British ocean liner that was sunk by German U-boats in 1915. He was one of the 1,200 passengers who did not survive the attack.

The American journalist Theodore Dreiser was persuaded by his publisher to take a cheaper ship home across the Atlantic.

Dreiser wrote about his brush with disaster in a chapter of his 1913 memoir, "A Traveler at Forty." Slate said the section about the Titanic, "The Voyage Home," was "one of the most gripping chapters in the memoir."

Dreiser wrote that he wanted to sail home with the rich and powerful people aboard the Titanic to get a peek at how the other half lived, but added that his publisher convinced him to sail home on the Kroonland, a cheaper ship, two days before Titanic sank.

"The terror of the sea had come swiftly and directly home to all," Dreiser wrote, according to Slate. "To think of a ship as immense as the Titanic, new and bright, sinking in endless fathoms of water. And the two thousand passengers routed like rats from their berths only to float helplessly in miles of water, praying and crying!"

John Mott, another Nobel Prize winner, was also offered a free ticket on the ship, but he chose a smaller ship, the Lapland, instead.

Mott, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was the longtime leader of the YMCA, was another near-miss. Gorden R. Doss, a professor at Andrews University, said that Mott came close to death a few times.

First, he skipped the Titanic and opted for the Lapland. Three decades later, in 1943, he narrowly avoided a train crash.

Mott said, "The Good Lord must have more work for us to do" upon hearing about the sinking, according to Sotheby's.

There were other celebrities who had tickets to sail the Titanic in the future, had it not sank. J.C. Penney was set to sail on the ship's next trip from England to New York.

According to the Smithsonian Magazine, the founder of JCPenney was set to sail on the Titanic's second voyage from England to the US.

Frank Seiberling, the cofounder of Goodyear Tires, was booked to return to Southampton on the Titanic's next voyage.

The Akron Beacon Journal reported that Seiberling, the cofounder of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, and his wife frequently traveled to England and were huge admirers of English architecture. But one of their trips was postponed when their ship out of the States, the Titanic, sank.

So was John Alden Dix, the governor of New York.

Smithsonian Magazine also reported that Dix, the governor of New York from 1911 to 1913, was on the passenger list of the Titanic's return trip to England.

Henry Adams, a historian who was a descendant of President John Adams and President John Quincy Adams, was also booked on this trip.

"My ship, the Titanic, is on her way," Adams wrote in a letter on April 12, 1912, "and unless she drops me somewhere else, I should get to Cherbourg in a fortnight." As history tells, Adams was never able to board the ship and was forced to book passage elsewhere, The New Republic's Timothy Noah wrote.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/k2QKEis
via IFTTT