222 News

Smileband supports 10 charitable organisations that support across the UK and the world, 222 News look in to researched information that is based around news and health related subjects, by entering your e mail and subscribing and verifying it in your e mail box, you are helping support 10 charities that we give money too. Also if a person’s information has been posted or shared and they don’t like it please contact us and we will have it removed, please follow our News.

Friday, 7 November 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Apple is preparing a new version of its set-top / streaming-hub device, commonly known as the Apple TV (or Apple TV 4K in its current generation). Rumours and leaks point to a release towards the end of 2025 (or possibly early 2026).

Key details emerging include:

• A major silicon upgrade: the device is expected to use the A17 Pro chip (or possibly a newer variant) rather than the A15 Bionic found in the current model.

• Improved connectivity: The new model may include a custom Apple-designed combo WiFi/Bluetooth chip, possibly supporting WiFi 7 / advanced wireless features.

• Price / positioning: Some analyst commentary suggests Apple may aim at a more accessible “base” model (or a cheaper “stick” form) to reach a wider audience.

• Design / features: While the overall external design may stay similar (same “puck” shape), the internal hardware steps up, and there are rumours of “smart-home hub” features, perhaps even camera support for FaceTime, though that’s less certain.

Why this matters

Elevating the living room

The Apple TV device has traditionally been more than “just a streaming box” for Apple—it functions as a bridge between Apple’s ecosystem (iPhone/iPad/Mac), home-entertainment, and smart-home accessories. The upgrade signals Apple’s intent to keep that position strong. For example:

• With stronger internals (A17 Pro etc) the device is better equipped for high-performance tasks: gaming, advanced media processing, maybe even AI-enhanced features.

• With better connectivity (WiFi/Bluetooth, maybe Thread/mesh networking) it fits more deeply into a smart-home setup.

• With the upcoming software update tvOS 26 (which adds visual redesign “Liquid Glass”, improved multi-profile support, AirPlay speaker defaulting, and karaoke features) Apple is sharpening the user experience.

Thus, the incoming device may serve not just to watch streaming video, but to act as the “hub” in the living room for Apple’s services and smart-home ecosystem.

Competitive market implications

Apple’s move is likely a response to rising competition in the streaming / smart-hub space (from Amazon Fire TV, Google Chromecast / Google TV, Roku, and smart TVs with built-in platforms). By upgrading internally and potentially lowering the entry price, Apple can better “compete for the TV box” in more households. Indeed, analysts note that Apple might aim for a “sub-$100” base price to broaden reach.

Implications for you (UK consumer)

From your perspective in the UK, that means:

• If you’re considering buying the current Apple TV 4K now, you may want to weigh how soon the new model might arrive (so you don’t buy just before a refresh).

• If you already have an Apple ecosystem (iPhone, iPad, Mac, HomePod etc), then an updated Apple TV can increase synergy (e.g., HomeKit/Thread accessories, AirPlay, Apple Music features).

• If you’re more budget-conscious, this upgrade may either trigger promotional discounts on the current model or point to a lower-cost entry model from Apple.

What we don’t (yet) know

• Exact launch date & pricing: We have strong rumours of “late 2025” but no confirmed date or UK pricing yet.

• Final specs: Chipset likely A17 Pro (or newer), but RAM, storage options, any major design overhaul are not confirmed.

• Feature set: While gameplay, streaming quality, connectivity upgrades are likely, it is unclear whether features like a built-in camera, advanced AI/resident “Apple Intelligence” functions, or gesture control will be part of this version. Some reports suggest the camera may be reserved for a later model.

• Which models: Whether Apple will release both a “premium” model and a lower-cost “entry” model or “stick”-style streamer version is still speculative.

• UK specifics: Importantly for UK buyers, we don’t yet have local release timing, currency pricing, or UK-specific features.

Recommendation & guidance

If I were advising you (given your interest in tech and home-entertainment), here’s how I’d frame your decision:

• If you need a streaming device now: Don’t delay too long if your current setup is lacking. The current Apple TV 4K is solid and will still be supported.

• If you can wait and want the “latest”: Holding off until the new model is announced makes sense. You’ll either get the newer hardware or be able to pick up the current model at a discount.

• If you’re budget-sensitive: Monitor pricing of the current model (as it may drop) and watch for the entry-level version of the new model, if Apple offers one.

• If ecosystem synergy matters: If you already own many Apple devices, the upgrade may have higher value (smart-home connectivity, gaming, AirPlay) rather than simply streaming.

• UK market considerations: Given UK release may lag a little behind US or may have different pricing, keep an eye on UK Apple announcements and pre-orders.

Conclusion

The upcoming Apple TV device represents a meaningful step for Apple in positioning its living room hardware as not just a streaming box, but a central node in the home-entertainment and smart-home ecosystem. With stronger internals, better connectivity, and an improved software experience (tvOS 26), the new model aims to deliver more value—but with that comes the question: Is now the right time to purchase?

For many UK buyers the sensible approach might be: wait a little, watch for the announcement, then decide based on what you value (current model discount vs. new model premium). If you’re impatient and need an upgrade now, the current Apple TV 4K remains a strong choice.

Attached is a news regarding the New Apple TV

https://www.techradar.com/streaming/apple-tv-plus/apple-tvs-new-logo-could-be-hiding-a-big-clue-about-its-movie-strategy-and-i-think-i-know-what-its-hinting-at

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

In-- Google tag (gtag.js) --> <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-XDGJVZXVQ4"></script> <script> window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-XDGJVZXVQ4'); </script>

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Joey Barton Found Guilty for Posting Offensive Message Online

Former footballer and manager Joey Barton has been found guilty of posting an offensive message on social media, reigniting debate about online conduct and accountability among public figures.

The case, heard at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, centred on a message Barton shared on X (formerly Twitter) earlier this year, which prosecutors described as “grossly offensive and deliberately harmful.” The post, which has since been deleted, reportedly targeted a well-known female sports journalist with language deemed misogynistic and degrading.

Barton, 42, denied the charge, claiming his comments were taken out of context and protected under freedom of expression. However, the court ruled that the message “went beyond the boundaries of acceptable discourse” and was “intended to humiliate and insult.”

District Judge Amanda Kelly told Barton during sentencing, “As a public figure with significant influence, your words carry weight. This message was not a matter of free speech — it was a personal attack, and the court cannot ignore its impact.”

The former Manchester City and Newcastle midfielder was handed a fine and ordered to complete community service, along with mandatory participation in an online conduct awareness course.

This is not Barton’s first brush with controversy. Known for his fiery temperament both on and off the pitch, he has faced multiple disciplinary issues throughout his career, including previous bans from football for misconduct and violent behaviour.

The verdict has sparked mixed reactions online. Supporters argue that Barton’s punishment is excessive and that free speech is being curtailed, while critics say it’s a long-overdue reminder that public figures must be held to higher standards of behaviour.

The Football Association and several broadcasters have declined to comment on whether Barton’s conviction will affect his future media work.

For now, the case stands as another cautionary tale about the blurred line between expression and abuse in the digital age — and the growing expectation that athletes, even in retirement, remain accountable for their words online.

Attached is a news article regarding joey Barton found guilty for posting offensive message on social media

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxn40ep4x2o.amp

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Introduction

On 4 November 2025, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness addressed the nation in a solemn press briefing following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Melissa — a Category 5 storm that made landfall in Jamaica and has now been described as the worst in the island’s recorded history.

In his statement, Holness outlined the scale of the disaster, the government’s response framework, and longer-term aspirations for rebuilding and resilience.

The scale of the disaster

Holness began by painting a stark picture of the damage: the hurricane struck near New Hope in the parish of Westmoreland with sustained winds of up to 185 mph and a minimum central pressure of 892 millibars — marking it as the first ever direct hit by a Category 5 hurricane on Jamaica in recorded history.

He emphasised that the storm did not merely damage infrastructure—“its force was so immense that seismographs hundreds of miles away registered its passage.”

In financial terms, Holness estimated damages equivalent to 28–32 % of Jamaica’s GDP, and a projected short-term economic output drop of around 8–13 %.

Immediate government response

Holness detailed a phased response plan:

• Immediate relief: Search-and-rescue, emergency shelters, provision of basic services such as food, water and medical aid.

• Emergency relief & stabilisation: Clearing debris, restoring utilities, restoring access to cut-off communities, supporting displaced persons.

• Recovery & reconstruction: Longer-term rebuilding with stronger infrastructure, resilient to future storms. Holness stated: “Every repaired bridge, re-roofed home and rebuilt road must be designed for the storms of tomorrow, not the storms of yesterday.”

Holness announced that the entire island had been formally declared a disaster area under Jamaica’s Disaster Risk Management Act, enabling the government to mobilise emergency powers, funding, and coordinate across agencies.

Key measures and mobilisation

• The government pre-emptively opened hundreds of shelters in schools, churches and community centres, and deployed trained personnel before the storm’s landfall.

• The electricity, water and telecommunications sectors were placed on high alert: the National Works Agency, the Jamaica Public Service, the National Water Commission all worked to secure infrastructure and activate backup systems.

• A logistics hub model was set up for marooned communities: Holness gave a list of more than 30 remote communities in western parishes that had been cut-off and now were being reached via relief “hubs and spokes”.

• To expedite relief, customs duty and GCT (General Consumption Tax) exemptions were extended for relief supplies until the end of December 2025. Moreover, consumers were allowed to import Starlink terminals, solar panels, batteries and inverters duty-free to get power and connectivity restored.

Challenges & realities

Holness did not shy away from acknowledging the enormity of the task ahead. He noted that the government lacked sufficient helicopters, social workers, engineers, and doctors in some of the hardest-hit terrain — which underlined the need for outside assistance and strong logistical coordination.

He also cautioned that “there may very well be bodies that have not yet been collected” and “a child that is hungry as I speak” — emphasising humility and urgent action.

International aid and climate dimension

In the briefing and subsequent comments, Holness framed Hurricane Melissa as not just a natural disaster, but a climate event at the edge of physical possibility. He said “experts describe Melissa to be on the very edge of what is physically possible in the Atlantic Ocean, a storm powered by record sea temperatures.”

He invited regional partners, development agencies, and the private sector to join Jamaica’s recovery effort, and emphasised that this was a test of global solidarity in the face of intensifying storms.

The path-forward: rebuilding stronger

Holness stressed that moving beyond relief, the focus must shift to resilience:

• Rebuilding homes, schools, hospitals and public utilities with future-proof designs

• Accelerating reopening of schools: Holness laid out three priorities — safe reopening where possible, continuity via blended/remote learning, and accelerated reconstruction of permanent classrooms.

• Mobilising citizens: A national Clean-Up Week (or potentially month) will be launched, with local MPs coordinating community mobilisation and small stipends to support a restart of economic activity.

• Ensuring aid is non-political: Holness emphasised that there will be no politicisation of relief efforts. “Every Jamaican is entitled to the aid that comes in… It never happened in COVID. It never happened in Beryl, and it will not happen.”

Analysis & implications

1. Economic impact: The damage estimate (28-32 % of GDP) underscores that Jamaica is facing not just a humanitarian crisis but a major economic shock. Recovery will strain public finances, increase debt-to-GDP ratios, and likely push the government to prioritise fiscal discipline even as relief spending accelerates.

2. Climate urgency: By framing Melissa as “a warning”, Holness is linking the event to global climate change and demanding that Jamaica rebuild not just what was lost but what it will need going forward. This may strengthen Jamaica’s calls for climate financing, debt relief, and stronger global partnerships.

3. Resilience over restoration: The repeated theme of “storms of tomorrow” signals a policy shift from simply restoring to pre-storm status, to redesigning systems to withstand greater intensity. This is meaningful for infrastructure, housing, education and utilities.

4. Logistics & coordination: The realignment of the national disaster response by placing the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) under the Office of the Prime Minister highlights the recognition that coordination and speed are vital in mega-disasters.

5. Social contract and trust: Holness’ emphasis on non-politicisation of aid, community mobilisation and transparency is important in maintaining public trust during crisis. Given the scale of the disaster, citizen patience may be tested.

Conclusion

Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ press briefing on the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa made clear the gravity of the crisis facing Jamaica — physically, economically and socially. At the same time, it positioned the government’s response with three key pillars: urgent relief, structured recovery, and future-proof rebuilding.

While many challenges remain — from infrastructure to logistics, funding to resilience — the tone of the briefing was one of commitment, realism and long-term vision. Jamaica’s next weeks and months will test the effectiveness of that response, and whether it can translate crisis into an opportunity for stronger, more resilient growth.

Attached is a news article regarding hurricane mellisa recovery

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166283

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Thursday, 6 November 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

How the Donald Trump administration’s policy-and-market backdrop created a rare window of outperformance for active managers and hedge funds

In recent years, the interplay between politics, regulation and market structure has created fertile ground for non-traditional asset-managers—especially hedge funds and active investment strategies—to gain relative outperformance. Under the Trump administration (and the attendant policy shifts that accompanied it), a number of dynamics converged that seem to have helped certain hedge funds and active managers perform better than what many thought possible. Yet the headline claim that the administration outperformed hedge funds (or vice-versa) requires nuance.

What follows is a breakdown of: (1) what the data show about hedge funds’ performance; (2) the Trump-era policy/regulatory/regime changes that matter; (3) how these changes may have produced opportunities (and risks) for hedge funds and active managers; and (4) a sober look at limitations and caveats.

1. What does the data say about hedge funds under Trump?

Underperformance historically

– According to the indexation firm HFR, Inc. (HFR), hedge funds underperform the broad equity market regardless of the party in the White House—but the degree of underperformance has varied. During Democratic administrations, hedge funds delivered annualised returns of ~10.16% versus ~11.99% for the S&P 500; during Republican administrations the under-performance gap was larger (≈331 basis points).

– A survey of hedge fund managers at the time of Trump’s 2016 election showed optimism: >50% of managers believed a Trump presidency would benefit their assets over the next 12 months.

Moves in AUM and gains in 2024/early-2025

– HFR data show that global hedge fund assets rose to an estimated US$4.51 trillion at the start of 2025 (a record) as managers and institutional investors repositioned around the Trump administration’s programme of “sweeping policy changes.”

– The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index gained +9.8% in 2024; the HFRI Equity Hedge index gained +12.0% and the HFRI Event-Driven index +11.6%.

– Meanwhile, the fund-manager comparison from AJ Bell’s “Manager vs Machine” report noted that in H1 2025, 51% of global active funds out-performed passive alternatives—a high watermark in their data. Their analysts attributed this to the backdrop created by the Trump-era regime.

So: Did hedge funds beat the administration or the market?

Not quite in the blanket sense. The data show that hedge funds continue to face challenges relative to broad indices over long time-horizons. Under Trump, some active funds and hedge funds found tailwinds and stronger relative performance. But the statement “Trump administration out-performing hedge funds” is misleading: it’s more accurate to say the administration’s environment helped some hedge funds perform, rather than the administration itself being a portfolio which beat hedge funds.

2. What about the Trump administration’s policies & regime changes?

Several policy/regulatory shifts during the Trump years (and lingering into early 2025) appear to have influenced markets and opportunity sets for active/hedge managers:

• Deregulation & tax cuts: The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, rollback of certain financial-regulation provisions, and promised deregulation across sectors boosted corporate earnings potential and changed risk/reward profiles for firms.

• Trade & tariff regime changes: Tariffs and trade tensions with China (and others) increased volatility, created winners/losers by industry, and changed global supply-chain dynamics—creating potential for event-driven strategies and directional bets.

• Shift in monetary policy backdrop & inflation concerns: Although the Federal Reserve is independent, the broader macro regime—including inflation, rate-hike expectations and currency moves—was influenced by the administration’s posture. That can create macro-hedging opportunities for hedge funds.

• Corporate behaviour & M&A cycle: As one HFR commentary noted, hedge funds were positioning for “a powerful and broad expansion of cryptocurrency acceptance, a robust strategic M&A cycle, falling (albeit shifting) geopolitical uncertainty, and an evolution in oversight and regulation of financial institutions” under the incoming Trump administration.

These shifts produced both increased volatility and structural change—two things hedge funds typically thrive on (if managed well).

3. Why might hedge funds/active funds have been able to outperform more than usual in this regime?

Here are some hypothesised mechanisms:

a) More dispersion and regime-change = more alpha opportunities

When markets are stable and trends are well-understood, many active strategies struggle to beat passive indices. But when you have big policy shifts, regulatory regime change, trade shocks, currency or interest-rate shocks—then the cross-section of returns widens, enabling well-positioned hedge funds to exploit mispricings, event-driven situations, macro bets and rapid rotation. This is consistent with the AJ Bell finding of 51% of global active funds beating passives in H1 2025.

b) Directional strategies benefit from structural tailwinds

For instance: equity hedge strategies gaining +12% in 2024 (HFR data) suggests directional managers were able to pick up on structural winners (e.g., deregulated sectors, M&A targets) and avoid some losers (tariff-exposed firms).

c) Event-driven / distressed / restructuring strategies get more opportunities

Change in regulation, tax policy, M&A environment and global supply-chains can generate corporate “events”—spinoffs, restructurings, special-situations—that event-driven hedge funds can exploit. The +11.6% gain in HFRI Event-Driven index in 2024 supports this.

d) Active funds profit from volatility

Volatility tends to be an enemy of passive broad indexing (which assumes more stable, trending markets) and a friend of well-managed hedge funds that can short, hedge, go long opportunistically. The trade-policy uncertainty and macro shifts under the Trump regime raised volatility and created richer opportunities for hedge funds.

4. But there are important caveats & limitations

Not all hedge funds or active managers out-performed

Despite the positive signals, hedge funds as a group still face hurdles. For example, the historical under-performance under Republican administrations remains meaningful.

Performance skew and selection bias

As always, standout results tend to get attention while the numerous “average” or under-performing funds are less visible. Aggregate indexes hide that many funds did not outperform.

The Trump “edge” may not persist indefinitely

Structural tails (policy shifts, deregulation, tariff shocks) may create a temporary window of opportunity—but once the regime becomes “known” and priced in, advantage may shrink. Also, reversal risks (e.g., regulatory rollback, trade war blowback) are real.

Attribution is fuzzy—politics is one of many factors

It’s tempting to attribute the outperformance solely to the Trump administration’s policies—but active fund performance depends on many variables: manager skill, sector exposure, capital flows, fee structures, risk management, macro regime. The administration created a backdrop, but funds still needed to execute well.

The broad markets still matter

Even in favourable regimes, many active funds may still underperform simple passive benchmarks depending on fee drag, leverage, cost of hedging, and asset inflows (which erode nimbleness).

5. Conclusion

In sum: the Trump administration’s policy-regime (deregulation, tax cuts, trade shocks, macro volatility) appears to have created a “sweet spot” for some hedge funds and active managers to generate stronger relative returns than they usually do—particularly in 2024/early 2025. While it would be inaccurate to claim that the administration out-performed hedge funds, it is fair to say that the regime under Trump provided extra tailwinds that many nimble active managers were able to exploit.

For investors or writers (such as yourself) the story has attractive drama: how political/regulatory shifts disrupt market structure, creating opportunities (and risks) for active strategies. If you’re writing an article on this topic, you might emphasise: the regime shift, the widening of return opportunities, case-studies of funds that succeeded, and the caution that these windows are not eternal.

Attached is a news article regarding trump administration over performing nearly every hedge fund

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/hedge-funds-ante-up-big-bets-kick-off-trumps-second-term-2025-01-21/

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Africa Owns 30% of the Earth’s Natural Resources: The Continent’s Hidden Wealth

Africa, often referred to as the “cradle of humanity,” is also the cradle of the world’s natural wealth. The continent is estimated to hold around 30% of the planet’s mineral and natural resource reserves, positioning it as one of the richest regions on Earth in terms of raw materials. Yet, despite this immense abundance, many African nations continue to grapple with poverty, underdevelopment, and foreign exploitation.

A Continent Bursting with Natural Wealth

From the diamond mines of Botswana and South Africa to the vast oil reserves in Nigeria and Angola, Africa’s land is rich in nearly every critical resource that fuels modern industry. The continent holds:

• 40% of the world’s gold reserves

• 90% of global chromium and platinum supplies

• 12% of the world’s oil reserves

• 8% of the world’s natural gas

• Nearly 70% of the planet’s cobalt, essential for electric car batteries and renewable energy technologies

Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, South Africa, and Zambia are at the heart of the global supply chain for essential minerals like copper, lithium, and cobalt — materials critical to the global green energy transition and modern technology production.

The Paradox of Plenty

Despite this immense natural wealth, many African nations have not yet seen the full benefits of their resources. Economists call this the “resource curse” — a phenomenon where nations rich in natural resources often experience slower economic growth, corruption, and political instability compared to those with fewer resources.

Foreign corporations and governments have long dominated Africa’s resource sectors. In many cases, mining contracts favor outside investors, leaving African nations with limited profits and significant environmental damage. This has raised growing calls across the continent for resource nationalism, where countries seek greater control and profit from their own minerals.

The Future of African Resource Power

With the global demand for green energy materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals skyrocketing, Africa is poised to play a central role in the 21st-century economy. The continent’s natural resources could be the key to transforming its economic landscape — if managed strategically.

Several countries are already taking steps to ensure fairer benefits:

• Namibia and Zimbabwe have banned the export of unprocessed lithium, encouraging local manufacturing.

• Ghana is reforming its mining laws to increase government revenue and reduce exploitation.

• The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), launched in 2021, aims to boost intra-African trade and strengthen regional control over resource wealth.

A Call for Economic Independence

As Africa holds nearly a third of the world’s natural wealth, the challenge now is ensuring that this abundance benefits the people of the continent. By investing in education, infrastructure, technology, and transparent governance, African nations have the potential to turn their mineral wealth into long-term prosperity — shifting from a supplier of raw materials to a leader in global industrial development.

Attached is a news article regarding Africa owning 30% of earth rare earths minerals

https://mcbgroup.com/insights/article/africa-and-the-global-minerals-race-china-rare-earth-controls-reshape-the-strategic-landscape

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Banks, crypto and discrimination: shifting regulatory terrain

In recent years, the relationship between banks and crypto-related customers has become fraught. Many banks in the UK and beyond have taken a restrictive stance toward customers who deal in crypto-assets. The reasons for such restrictions include fears around money-laundering, fraud and regulatory confusion. But as the regulatory regime evolves, banks may face greater scrutiny — and even fines — if they act arbitrarily or blanket ban lawful crypto activity.

Why banks restrict crypto-activity

Banks argue that crypto-asset transactions carry higher risk:

• According to industry data, UK banks say that fraud losses for payments labelled as going to crypto-asset services (merchant category code 6051) are 12-13 times higher than for standard payments.

• Certain banks have publicly stated they will block payments to crypto-exchanges or refuse to accept transfers for crypto purchases. For example, Chase UK announced from 16 October 2023 that it would decline payments it considered “related to crypto assets”, citing a rise in scams.

• The regulatory framework for crypto in the UK is still less mature than for traditional finance. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates some crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) for anti-money-laundering (AML) purposes, but many banks feel exposed to risk if they facilitate transfers to less regulated crypto firms.

As a result, many banks adopt a risk-based (or risk-averse) approach: rather than assessing each customer or transaction on its merits, some appear to impose broad restrictions on crypto-related activity (or on customers or businesses they identify as “crypto”).

Is it discrimination (or “de-banking”)?

From the crypto-industry’s point of view, the problem is that these bank decisions can appear overly broad, lacking transparency or being inconsistent with the principles of fairness or competitive access. For example:

• The industry trade body CryptoUK has warned that many major UK banks are implementing blanket bans or restrictions on transactions to crypto firms “instead of taking a risk-based and case-by-case approach”.

• A recent survey found 40 % of UK crypto-investors reported their payments to buy crypto had been blocked or delayed by their bank.

This raises questions: if a bank closes or restricts a customer simply because they deal with crypto, is that a legitimate risk-management decision — or is it unfair discrimination (especially if the customer is otherwise compliant)? And, importantly: might regulators step in?

When banks get fined — and why

While much of the regulatory action to date has focused on crypto-firms and CASPs (crypto service providers) rather than banks discriminating against crypto customers, the regulatory landscape suggests banks must tread carefully. Two things to note:

1. Banks can be fined for weak financial crime controls, even if they are not specifically targeting crypto customers.

• For instance, the FCA fined the digital bank Starling Bank £29 million in October 2024 for “shockingly lax” sanctions and anti-money-laundering systems, noting the bank had opened accounts for high-risk customers.

• Also, the FCA fined the CASP‐gateway CB Payments Limited (UK arm of Coinbase Group) £3.5 m for onboarding high-risk customers in breach of a voluntary requirement.

2. Banks’ unwillingness to deal with crypto firms may attract regulatory scrutiny, especially if it’s done without clear justification.

• CryptoUK has urged regulators to challenge banks that impose broad bans or deny services to registered, compliant crypto firms.

• The UK regulatory authorities have emphasised that financial sanctions and AML rules apply equally regardless of whether the underlying asset is “crypto” or not.

Thus, if a bank refuses to provide services to a crypto-business or customer despite evidence of compliance and legitimate business, it may face challenge — though, to date, there are no prominent public cases of banks being fined purely for discriminating against crypto customers. The fines have instead been for banks failing to apply sufficient controls.

What this means going forward

For writers, businesses and consumers navigating the bank/crypto space in the UK, here are some key take-aways:

• Banks will remain cautious: The regulatory environment for crypto remains high risk from the viewpoint of banks (fraud, AML, sanctions). They will continue to apply restrictions or higher scrutiny when dealing with crypto-custodians or exchanges.

• Crypto firms and customers should document compliance: If a crypto business is registered with the FCA (or meets equivalent AML/KYC standards) or a customer is transacting legitimately, they would be in a stronger position to challenge broad service denials.

• Regulators expect a risk-based approach: The regulatory expectation is that firms (and conceivably banks) treat each case individually (based on risk), rather than simply banning all crypto-activity. Blanket bans may raise concerns of unfair practice or competitive distortion.

• Future risks of fines: While banks have not yet been heavily fined for “crypto discrimination”, they are assuming risk when they either ignore crypto-related traffic (and let illicit activity go) or when they make unjustified blanket exclusions. As regulatory frameworks mature (including forthcoming stablecoin and crypto-asset regimes) the stakes will increase.

• Consumers should be aware: For individuals dealing with crypto, having a bank that facilitates transfers to compliant crypto platforms is important. If banks block payments, that may reflect risk policies rather than illegality — but it may also limit legitimate access. The survey showing 40% of crypto buyers in the UK faced blocked payments underlines this.

Suggested headline and opening

Headline: “When banks say ‘no’ to crypto – and how regulators might penalise unfair bans”

Opening paragraph:

As the UK banking sector tightens its grip on crypto-asset related activity, thousands of individuals and crypto businesses find their accounts restricted, payments blocked or services refused — often without clear justification. While banks argue this is justified risk management, the question emerges: when does risk management become unfair discrimination? And as regulators sharpen their focus on financial crime controls, could banks themselves face fines for indiscriminate “crypto de-banking”?

Closing thought

The crypto sector is at a crossroads: it needs access to banking services to operate but remains under-heightened regulatory and reputational scrutiny. Banks, who face huge sums in potential fines if they fail their AML/sanctions duties, may choose the safe route of broadly restricting crypto traffic rather than finely judging each case. That broad approach may be safe now, but as regulation catches up, banking decisions made for “risk avoidance” could open banks to challenge — and potentially, penalty.

Attached is a news article regarding banks can not discriminate crypto or they can be fined for debanking

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/08/trump-banks-crackdown-debanking-00497145

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Elon Musk and His $1 Trillion Pay Package: A Deep Dive

What’s on the Table

In September 2025, Tesla, Inc. proposed a compensation scheme for CEO Elon Musk that could be worth up to US $1 trillion — if a series of formidable milestones are met over roughly the next decade.

Key features of the plan include:

• Up to ~423.7 million additional Tesla shares (≈12 % of the company) contingent on performance and long-term tenure.

• Elevating Tesla’s market capitalisation target to around US $8.5 trillion by circa 2035 (current valuation ~US $1 trillion) to unlock full payout.

• Ambitious operational goals: delivering ~20 million vehicles per year, deploying ~1 million robot-taxis, 1 million humanoid robots, and achieving ~10 million Full Self-Driving (FSD) subscriptions.

• Musk must stay in a qualifying leadership role (CEO or equivalent) for at least ~7½ to 10 years to fully realise the award.

• No salary or cash bonus is part of the scheme — everything is equity-based.

2. Why Tesla & Musk Are Doing This

From Tesla’s perspective, here’s the rationale:

• Musk is widely regarded as the driving force behind Tesla’s brand, innovation, and market lead; the board sees his continued leadership as essential for Tesla’s next phase (electric vehicles → AI + robotics + autonomous services).

• By tying compensation to extremely lofty goals, the company argues that if Musk fails to deliver, they pay nothing — the payout is conditional.

• From Musk’s side, the deal gives him more voting control (his stake could rise to ~25-29 % of Tesla) and locks in his role, which may fend off takeover/exit risks that could undermine Tesla’s strategy.

3. The Major Criticisms and Risks

Despite the ambitious vision, the plan has sparked serious controversy and governance concerns:

• Scale & dilution: Granting ~12 % of the company to one person — even contingent — is seen by many as extraordinary. Institutional investors have flagged that this could dilute other shareholders.

• “Key-person risk”: Tesla is deeply identified with Musk. If he leaves, or fails, the company might be exposed. Some investors argue this deal increases that risk rather than mitigates it.

• Feasibility of milestones: The operational targets are extremely aggressive — jumping from ~2 million vehicles delivered/year to ~20 million, or deploying 1 million Robotaxis when hardly any are operational today.

• Corporate governance issues: Some proxy advisers (e.g., Glass, Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.) have publicly recommended voting against the plan. Musk himself labelled these advisers “corporate terrorists”.

• Message to markets and society: The size of the award raises broader questions about executive compensation, inequality, and whether such a payout aligns with shareholder interests (or public expectations).

4. What the Vote & Market Reaction Show

• A shareholder vote in November 2025 reportedly saw ~75 % support for the package.

• On the market side, Tesla’s share price reacted positively in the short term when the compensation proposal was announced (e.g., a ~3.6 % rally).

• Key shareholder groups such as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (Norges Bank Investment Management) have publicly opposed it, citing concerns about size and governance.

5. Implications — What This Means Going Forward

For Musk and Tesla

• If Tesla hits the targets and Musk stays on board, both could become massively more valuable — shifting Tesla’s image from an EV-maker to an AI/robotics powerhouse.

• If rallies and expectations don’t convert into results, the deal may backfire: Musk could be criticised for failing, and the enormous payout potential might look unsustainable or symbolic rather than realistic.

For Corporate Governance & Executive Pay

• This may set a new benchmark for founder-led compensation packages — especially in companies where the founder is seen as uniquely indispensable.

• It raises questions about board independence, shareholder rights, how much one person should control, and whether multi-tranche, ultra-long-term pay plans align incentives appropriately.

For Investors

• Shareholders are effectively betting that Tesla will deliver hyper-growth over the next decade (market cap from ~US $1 trillion to ~US $8.5 trillion) — a dramatic leap.

• Investors should monitor the actual operational progress (delivery growth, robotaxi rollout, FSD market share) and assess whether the milestones are credible.

• The risk that Musk’s focus is split (he also runs SpaceX, xAI and others) remains relevant.

6. Conclusion

Elon Musk’s $1 trillion compensation package is uniquely audacious. It reflects Tesla’s ambition to transform not just the auto industry, but to leap into robotics, AI and autonomous mobility at scale. At the same time, it raises serious questions about governance, risk, feasibility and fairness.

Whether it will deliver value or become a case study in over-reach remains to be seen — but one thing is certain: this deal will be watched carefully by investors, governance experts and industry analysts alike.

Attached is a news article regarding Elon musk 1 trillion pay package

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/business/musk-trillion-dollar-pay-package-vote

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

More dangerous than heroin”: the rise of the black-market “skinny jab” and why it’s alarming Britain

A new black-market trade in so-called “skinny jabs” — unlicensed weight-loss injections sold through salons, social media and shadowy online sellers — is prompting urgent warnings from health experts and regulators, and raising uncomfortable questions about how a public-health risk can outpace the harms posed by traditional drug trafficking. “More dangerous than heroin,” read an ITV investigation this week after reporting linked deaths and serious hospitalisations to counterfeit slimming injections arriving in the UK.

A booming black market for slimming drugs

What people commonly call “skinny jabs” are drugs from the GLP-1 family (the class that includes semaglutide products such as Wegovy and Ozempic) that were developed to treat diabetes and — under medical supervision — to help people with obesity lose weight. Demand has soared in recent years as prescriptions and public interest grew, and commercial shortages and long waiting lists for proper clinical assessment have created an opening for illicit sellers. Traders exploiting that demand are supplying pre-filled pens, vials and injections of uncertain provenance — sometimes genuine drugs diverted from legitimate supply chains, often counterfeit products that may contain the wrong active ingredient, the wrong dose, or no active drug at all. Regulators have repeatedly warned the public not to buy prescription medicines outside licensed channels.

Real harms: deaths, hospitalisations and contamination

The human cost of this market has already been documented. Families and clinicians have linked at least one death in the UK to an illegally administered slimming injection, and there have been multiple cases of severe illness requiring intensive care after patients used products bought from salons or online sellers. Symptoms reported include violent vomiting, dehydration, complications from improper dosing, and suspected infections from unsterile administration. Medical bodies and local health leaders are publicly urging people to avoid unregulated injections and to seek licensed care.

Why some say “more dangerous than heroin”

The headline comparison with heroin is striking, but proponents of the phrase argue it is not rhetorical. Their points are:

• Accessibility and reach. Skinny jabs are being marketed overtly on social media and are available through high-street beauty salons and informal clinics — making them easy to obtain for a wide, often vulnerable, audience who may not realise the risks. This differs from heroin distribution, which generally operates through criminal networks and often requires a point of contact.

• Novel, unpredictable risks. Counterfeit or improperly stored injectables can cause immediate, life-threatening reactions (wrong dose, contamination, bacterial infection). Heroin’s harms are well-known and, for the many affected, chronic; the risk profile of fake injectable products can be acute and medically baffling.

• Regulatory blind spots. Prescription-only medicines sold outside healthcare settings fall into a regulatory grey area that can be exploited quickly; enforcement and public-health messaging have struggled to keep pace with rapidly evolving online marketplaces. The MHRA has repeatedly warned the public that buying weight-loss medicines without a prescription is illegal and dangerous.

Those factors explain why reporters and some clinicians are using dramatic language. But it is important to be precise: the comparison is not about which substance is intrinsically more harmful per dose — heroin has devastating addiction and overdose potential — but about the type of harm, the speed with which the skinny-jab market has proliferated, and the different populations exposed to immediate, sometimes lethal, risks.

Heroin trafficking remains a major organised-crime problem

Facts matter when we compare risks. Law-enforcement bodies report large seizures of heroin and other Class A drugs each year, and heroin trafficking continues to fund organised crime and drive addiction and long-term harm across communities. The Home Office and Border Force figures show record-high numbers of seized drugs in recent years, and agencies such as the National Crime Agency continue to target major consignments and networks. That work saves lives and disrupts criminal enterprise, and the scale of heroin supply and addiction in the UK continues to be a serious public-policy challenge.

What needs to happen next

Public-health experts, regulators and police are increasingly calling for a multi-pronged response:

• Stronger enforcement of illegal online sales and fast action to remove advertisements and accounts promoting unlicensed injections.

• Greater public education so people understand the red flags (cash payments, vials instead of pre-filled pens, sellers who won’t show prescriptions or storage information).

• Better clinical access for patients eligible for licensed weight-loss treatments, reducing the market incentive to seek drugs through illicit channels.

• Cross-agency policing that treats counterfeit medical products as both a criminal and health priority, partnering regulators, Border Force and local health services to trace supply chains.

Bottom line

The skinny-jab scandal is a cautionary tale about how quickly a public-health problem can emerge when demand outstrips regulated supply, and how new forms of illegal commerce can put a different slice of the population at immediate risk. While heroin trafficking remains a grave and complex threat that fuels organised crime and long-term addiction, the rise of counterfeit weight-loss injections shows that danger can also wear a different face: one that arrives in a salon, in a social-media DM, or through a doorstep seller — lethal not because of an age-old stigma but because of contamination, bad dosing and the absence of medical oversight. That combination is what has prompted doctors, families and regulators to sound the alarm.

Attached is a news article regarding skinny jab that is more dangerous then herion

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/25/skinny-jabs-weight-loss-drugs-generic-ozempic-wegovy-saxenda

Article written and configured Christopher Stanley

894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36

https://www.legalentityidentifier.co.uk/leicert/894500L65WEHZ4XKDX36/

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/smileband/541441561