Henry Hill argues that defenders of Britain’s immigration consensus rely on rhetorical denunciation rather than addressing substantive concerns about welfare use, scarce social housing and the cumulative effects of immigration. He rejects arguments that foreign-born residents’ British citizenship resolves the policy problem, contending that granting passports after importing people into the welfare system can compound the failure and weaken the passport’s symbolic meaning. Hill distinguishes between immigration flows and the accumulated population stock, criticises the use of “remigration” as a catch-all accusation, and says attempts to make immigration politically taboo have prevented mainstream parties from responding to public opinion, enabling the radical right to gain ground.

The Trump administration’s effort to disable the International Criminal Court through sanctions, travel restrictions, and diplomatic pressure is portrayed as a threat to international accountability and U.S. credibility. Although the ICC faces serious institutional weaknesses, including underfunding and dependence on state cooperation, it remains the world’s only permanent court for the gravest crimes. The authors argue that prior U.S. opposition under George W. Bush ultimately gave way to pragmatic cooperation, particularly over Darfur, because the ICC could serve American interests in peace and stability. They contend that the current campaign is instead aimed at shielding U.S. and allied personnel from scrutiny, with potentially devastating consequences for accountability in Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, and Ukraine.

The Trump administration’s campaign to “systematically disable” the International Criminal Court through sanctions, travel restrictions, and diplomatic pressure is presented as a cynical escalation beyond protecting specific U.S. defendants. Although the ICC faces serious problems, including underfunding, state noncooperation, and the removal of prosecutor Karim Khan following misconduct allegations, the authors argue that the court remains the world’s only permanent institution for addressing the gravest crimes. They contend that past U.S. opposition under George W. Bush ultimately gave way to pragmatic cooperation, including allowing the U.N. referral of Sudan to the ICC, because the court served broader U.S. interests in peace and stability. The current campaign, especially amid allegations of unlawful U.S. strikes and demands to immunize Trump administration personnel, is said to jeopardize accountability for atrocities in Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, and Ukraine while damaging U.S. credibility and reinforcing perceptions that international law applies only to America’s adversaries.

Janine di Giovanni warns that El-Obeid, where up to 500,000 civilians face grave danger, could suffer atrocities similar to those in El-Fasher, which fell to the Rapid Support Forces in October 2025. UN human rights chief Volker Türk calls for immediate international action, while the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Norway plan to propose a resolution condemning RSF violence and demanding a ceasefire. Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard calls for expanding the arms embargo beyond Darfur, pressure on states with influence over the RSF—especially the UAE—and deployment of an international force. Drawing parallels with the 1995 fall of Srebrenica, di Giovanni argues that decisive action could still protect El-Obeid.

Sudan’s war between the Rapid Support Forces and Sudanese Armed Forces has caused mass displacement, hunger, the collapse of health and education services, and extensive civilian suffering. Refugees describe killings, rape, family separation, and attacks on communities, while the 2025 fall of El Fasher brought a large-scale massacre after international warnings went unheeded. The conflict is rooted in Sudan’s history of repression, civil wars, and militarized rule, and is sustained by regional and foreign interests in gold, weapons, and strategic influence. The RSF and SAF remain committed to military objectives, while civilians bear the consequences and prospects for peace remain bleak.

The recent U.S.-Iran truce deal creates a temporary halt to the war but lacks mechanisms to produce lasting stability. Major disputes over Iran’s nuclear program, financial relief, and control of the Strait of Hormuz remain unresolved, while mutual distrust limits prospects for meaningful progress. Israel’s exclusion from negotiations, its ongoing regional military operations, and domestic political pressures increase the likelihood of continued friction. Iran’s weakened proxies, its new leadership’s confrontational stance, and Gulf states’ diminishing confidence in U.S. protection further complicate the landscape. Divergent priorities among allies and the United States’ inconsistent regional strategy reduce confidence that the agreement can prevent recurring cycles of conflict, making prolonged instability the most probable outcome.

UN investigators verified sexual violence against Palestinian detainees in Israeli custody between 2023 and 2025, leading to Israel being added to the UN’s conflict‑related sexual violence blacklist alongside Russia. The findings cite systemic abuse, lack of accountability and obstruction of investigations, underscored by dropped charges against soldiers despite evidence. Human rights groups such as B’Tselem have long documented similar patterns. Israel rejected the UN report and cut ties with the secretary general, while the article argues that meaningful consequences—sanctions, institutional exclusion, reparations and ICC action—are necessary. Comparisons are drawn with Ukraine’s cooperation with monitors following its own abuses. The piece concludes that the blacklist establishes a documented record, leaving open whether international actors will pursue accountability.

Michael Murphy attacks broadcaster James O’Brien’s book How to be Right and his LBC interviewing style, arguing that O’Brien’s combative questioning and confidence in his own moral and intellectual superiority often substitute for listening and rigorous scrutiny. The article accuses him of dismissing concerns about immigration and policing, getting facts wrong in a Brexit interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, and failing to properly acknowledge his role in amplifying Carl Beech’s false allegations. It argues that O’Brien’s response to errors amounts to claiming he was wrong for the right reasons, and concludes that his worldview is increasingly out of step with Britain’s political and social realities.

The article explores the billion-dollar anti-ageing industry, highlighting the significant expenditure on cosmetics aimed at preserving youthful skin. It discusses various brands and products, including Elizabeth Arden, Lancôme, Shiseido, Kanebo, Clarins, and Imedeen, and examines consumer behavior and marketing strategies. The piece also features opinions from skincare experts like Eve Lom, who express skepticism about the effectiveness of anti-wrinkle creams, advocating for natural skincare methods instead. The narrative underscores the relentless pursuit of youthfulness driven by societal pressures and the beauty industry's influence.

Marie Colvin’s death while reporting in Syria highlights escalating dangers faced by journalists as governments and armed groups increasingly target them. Press access has diminished in conflict zones such as Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, enabling disinformation to proliferate and reducing accountability. With independent reporting blocked, state narratives and propaganda shape public perception, fueling polarisation. Initiatives such as The Reckoning Project work to gather verified testimony to counter falsehoods, but the erosion of frontline journalism leaves truth vulnerable. Colvin’s killing underscores the urgent need to protect press freedom and preserve independent witnessing in war zones.