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.

Tuesday, 11 February 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Barron Trump, the youngest son of President Donald Trump and former First Lady Melania Trump, has embarked on his academic journey at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Unlike many of his peers who reside in standard student accommodations, Barron has opted for a more opulent living arrangement by continuing to reside at the family’s renowned Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue.

This decision was influenced by both personal preference and security considerations. Melania Trump emphasized that it was Barron’s choice to remain at home during his studies, stating, “It was his decision to come here, that he wants to be in New York and study in New York and live in his home, and I respect that.”

Trump Tower, a symbol of luxury and affluence, offers Barron an unparalleled living experience. The residence boasts expansive views of Manhattan, state-of-the-art amenities, and top-tier security measures. His daily commute to NYU is facilitated by a convoy of five SUVs, accompanied by a dedicated security detail comprising Secret Service agents and NYPD officers.

While this arrangement ensures Barron’s safety and comfort, it also sets him apart from the typical college experience. His presence on campus is marked by heightened security protocols, and he often travels with a significant entourage. Despite these differences, reports indicate that Barron has made efforts to integrate into the university community. He has been described as “really popular with the ladies” and has garnered attention from classmates, even those with differing political views.

In summary, Barron Trump’s college living situation is a blend of luxury and necessity, reflecting both his family’s status and a desire for normalcy within the confines of his unique circumstances.

Key Points:

• Barron Trump’s College Choice: He is attending New York University’s Stern School of Business.

• Luxury Living Arrangement: Instead of living in dorms, Barron continues to reside in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue.

• Melania Trump’s Statement: She confirmed that it was Barron’s decision to stay at home while studying.

• Security Measures: His commute to NYU involves a convoy of SUVs with Secret Service agents and NYPD officers.

• Exclusive Lifestyle: Trump Tower offers expansive views, state-of-the-art amenities, and elite security.

• On-Campus Presence: Barron is highly recognizable, with increased security protocols and a notable popularity among classmates.

• Contrasts with Typical Student Life: While Barron enjoys high-end accommodations, his unique status makes his college experience different from the average NYU student.

Conclusion

Barron Trump’s college experience at NYU is anything but typical. While most students navigate dorm life and shared apartments, Barron enjoys the unparalleled luxury of Trump Tower, complete with top-tier security and a personal convoy for his daily commute. His decision to stay at home, backed by Melania Trump, ensures both his comfort and safety but also sets him apart from his peers. Despite the heightened security and exclusivity of his living situation, Barron appears to be integrating into campus life, gaining attention from classmates and making a name for himself beyond his famous last name. His experience reflects the intersection of privilege, security, and personal choice, offering a glimpse into the unique challenges of being the son of a former U.S. president.

Attached is a news article regarding Barron trump collage lavish life style

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13817991/amp/barron-trump-nyu-college-classmates-school.html

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

<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>

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Scientists Monitoring ‘City-Killer’ Asteroids to Prevent Future Disasters

Scientists around the world are closely monitoring near-Earth objects (NEOs), including the so-called “city-killer” asteroids—space rocks large enough to cause significant destruction if they were to collide with Earth. These asteroids, often measuring between 50 and 200 meters in diameter, are not as large as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, but they are still capable of devastating cities, regions, or even entire countries.

The Threat of City-Killer Asteroids

Astronomers define a “city-killer” asteroid as one that could unleash explosive energy comparable to nuclear weapons if it were to strike a populated area. For example, the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor, which exploded over Russia with the force of about 30 Hiroshima bombs, was only about 20 meters wide. It injured over 1,500 people and caused millions of dollars in damage—yet it was far smaller than some of the asteroids currently being tracked.

One of the biggest concerns is that some of these asteroids can go undetected until they are dangerously close. In 2019, a 100-meter-wide asteroid, designated 2019 OK, passed within 70,000 kilometers of Earth—less than one-fifth the distance to the Moon—without being spotted until just days before its closest approach. This near miss highlighted the gaps in planetary defense and the need for better detection systems.

How Scientists Monitor Asteroids

Space agencies like NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and independent observatories worldwide use telescopes and radar systems to track potentially hazardous asteroids. Programs such as NASA’s Near-Earth Object Observations (NEOO) Program and the Pan-STARRS telescope in Hawaii scan the skies for new threats.

Astronomers categorize asteroids based on their orbits:

• Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs): Those that come within 7.5 million kilometers of Earth and are at least 140 meters wide.

• Near-Earth Objects (NEOs): Asteroids or comets that pass within 50 million kilometers of our planet.

Scientists use calculations to predict an asteroid’s future trajectory and assess the risk of impact. If an asteroid is determined to be on a collision course, experts can devise strategies to deflect it or mitigate damage.

Defending Earth: Can We Stop an Impact

In recent years, planetary defense strategies have taken a major leap forward. In 2022, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) successfully altered the orbit of an asteroid called Dimorphos, proving that kinetic impact could be a viable method to prevent a collision. Other potential methods include:

• Gravity Tractors: Using a spacecraft’s gravitational pull to slowly shift an asteroid’s trajectory.

• Nuclear Deflection: Detonating a nuclear device near an asteroid to alter its path (though this is considered a last resort).

• Solar Sails or Laser Ablation: Using sunlight or lasers to heat one side of an asteroid, causing it to change course due to the release of gases.

Looking to the Future

Although no city-killer asteroid is currently known to be on a direct collision course with Earth, scientists continue to improve detection methods and refine defense strategies. The upcoming NASA NEO Surveyor mission, set to launch in the late 2020s, will enhance our ability to track hazardous asteroids. Meanwhile, international cooperation between space agencies remains crucial in preparing for future threats.

For now, the chances of a catastrophic asteroid impact remain low, but ongoing research and monitoring ensure that if a threat does arise, humanity will be better prepared than ever to respond.

Attached is a news article regarding the city killer asteroid

https://www.livescience.com/space/asteroids/in-emergency-decision-james-webb-telescope-will-study-city-killer-asteroid-2024-yr4-before-its-close-approach-to-earth

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Monday, 10 February 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

An inquest has revealed that 19-year-old Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck was found dead at Larkhill Camp in Wiltshire on December 15, 2021, after enduring relentless harassment from her superior, Bombardier Ryan Mason. Mason reportedly sent Beck approximately 3,600 messages in November 2021 alone, expressing obsessive sentiments such as “You’re amazing Jaysley” and “I do love you Jaysley.” Beck confided in her mother, Leighann McCready, describing Mason’s behavior as “creepy” and expressing fears that he had hacked her phone due to his precise knowledge of her whereabouts.

Despite Beck’s attempts to discourage Mason’s advances, he persisted, leading to significant emotional distress. Beck felt trapped by Mason’s actions and refrained from reporting him, fearing she would be labeled a troublemaker and doubting the Army’s response based on previous experiences. An Army inquiry cited Mason’s behavior as a significant factor in Beck’s death.

The inquest also highlighted other stressors in Beck’s life, including her uncle’s recent suicide, a breakup in November 2021, and a previous assault by a sergeant, all of which contributed to her declining mental health. Her friend, Bombardier John Wheeler, testified that Beck had been involved in relationships with other senior officers, which also played a significant role in her tragic suicide.

This case underscores the critical need for the military to address issues of harassment and the hierarchical dynamics that can contribute to such tragedies. The inquest into Beck’s death is ongoing. For those needing support, Samaritans can be contacted at 116 123 or through samaritans.org.

Here are the key points regarding the inquest into the death of teenage soldier Jaysley Beck:

• Victim: Jaysley Beck, a 19-year-old Royal Artillery Gunner, was found dead at Larkhill Camp in Wiltshire on December 15, 2021.

• Harassment: Beck was relentlessly harassed by her superior, Bombardier Ryan Mason, who sent her around 3,600 messages in a single month.

• Obsessive Messages: Mason repeatedly told Beck he loved her and expressed possessive behavior, which she found “creepy.”

• Phone Hacking Fears: Beck feared Mason had hacked her phone, as he always seemed to know her whereabouts.

• Emotional Distress: Despite discouraging Mason’s advances, Beck felt trapped and believed reporting him would harm her military career.

• Army Report: An internal Army inquiry found Mason’s harassment to be a significant factor in her death.

• Other Stressors: Beck was also dealing with her uncle’s suicide, a breakup, and a previous assault by another senior officer.

• Friend’s Testimony: A fellow soldier testified that Beck’s relationships with senior officers had contributed to her distress.

• Ongoing Inquest: The inquest continues to examine the Army’s handling of harassment and safeguarding policies.

• Support Resources: Helplines like Samaritans (116 123) are available for those struggling with mental health issues.

The tragic case of Jaysley Beck highlights serious concerns about harassment, abuse of power, and mental health support within the British Army. Despite clear signs of distress, Beck felt unable to report her superior’s obsessive behavior, fearing professional repercussions. Her death underscores the urgent need for stronger safeguarding measures, improved reporting systems, and a cultural shift within the military to protect vulnerable personnel from abuse and coercion. As the inquest continues, it is crucial for the armed forces to address these systemic issues to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Attached is a news article regarding the teen soldier who felt trapped by her paychotic boss

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/10/british-soldier-jaysley-beck-ryan-mason-wiltshire

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

On Monday, February 10, 2025, a significant police operation unfolded on Lewisham High Street in southeast London. At approximately 10:45 am, authorities responded to reports of a shirtless man brandishing a knife and shouting from a third-floor window. The individual claimed to have hostages and threatened self-harm, prompting immediate action from emergency services.

The Metropolitan Police, along with the London Ambulance Service and the London Fire Brigade, swiftly cordoned off the area to ensure public safety. The nearby HSBC bank closed as a precaution, though the bank confirmed that no customers or staff were involved in the incident. Residents within the cordoned zone were directed to a local community center, where they were provided with hot drinks and updates on the situation.

Throughout the standoff, which extended into the evening hours, the man was observed taunting police officers, brandishing a knife, and consuming alcohol near the window. Authorities emphasized that there was no information suggesting the presence of other individuals inside the property. Specialist negotiators engaged with the man in efforts to resolve the situation peacefully.

As of 9:00 pm, the standoff remained ongoing, with armed officers maintaining their positions and negotiators continuing their dialogue with the individual. The Metropolitan Police advised the public to avoid the area due to traffic disruptions and the significant emergency services presence. They also urged anyone with information related to the incident to come forward.

This incident underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement in managing situations involving armed individuals in public spaces. The priority remains the safety of all involved, with authorities striving for a peaceful resolution.

Here are the key points from the incident in Lewisham:

• Date & Time: Incident began around 10:45 am on February 10, 2025.

• Location: Lewisham High Street, southeast London.

• Suspect: Shirtless man armed with a knife, shouting from a third-floor window.

• Threats: Claimed to have hostages and threatened self-harm.

• Emergency Response:

• Metropolitan Police, London Ambulance Service, and London Fire Brigade attended.

• Armed officers and specialist negotiators were deployed.

• Public Safety Measures:

• Area cordoned off; HSBC bank closed as a precaution.

• Residents directed to a community center for updates.

• Incident Developments:

• Man taunted police, brandished a knife, and drank alcohol by the window.

• No evidence of actual hostages inside the property.

• Current Status: As of 9:00 pm, the standoff was ongoing with police in negotiations.

• Advice to Public: Avoid the area due to traffic disruptions and ongoing police operation.

The ongoing standoff in Lewisham highlights the complexities and risks involved in handling armed individuals in public spaces. Despite initial fears of hostages, authorities have found no evidence supporting this claim. The Metropolitan Police and emergency services continue to prioritize public safety while attempting a peaceful resolution through negotiation. As the situation develops, residents are advised to avoid the area and follow police updates. This incident underscores the importance of swift emergency response and the challenges law enforcement faces in de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.

Attached is a news article regarding the standoff with a man with a knife in Lewisham shouting out of a window

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce85lgng60go.amp

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Farmers Descend on Westminster for Inheritance Tax Tractor Protest

Westminster saw a dramatic demonstration today as farmers from across the UK drove their tractors into central London to protest against what they call the “crippling” impact of inheritance tax (IHT) on agricultural businesses. The protest, organised by farming groups, aims to draw attention to the financial strain faced by family-run farms when passing land and assets to the next generation.

A Fight for Family Farms

Farmers argue that the current inheritance tax system places an unfair burden on agricultural families, many of whom struggle to keep their businesses running after the death of a relative. While agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) exist to mitigate some tax liabilities, campaigners claim that bureaucratic hurdles and shifting policies make it increasingly difficult for farmers to pass their land down without facing severe financial losses.

Speaking at the protest, Tom Harding, a fourth-generation farmer from Lincolnshire, said:

“We work the land for generations, but the government treats us like any other wealthy estate owners. When a farm is hit with a huge tax bill, the only way to pay it is by selling land, breaking up businesses, and ultimately harming British food production.”

The Policy Debate

Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on estates valued above £325,000, though many farms qualify for relief. However, farming groups fear that future tax reforms could erode these exemptions, making it harder for small and medium-sized farms to stay within families.

In contrast, Treasury officials argue that the tax system is designed to prevent excessive wealth accumulation and ensure fairness. However, critics within the farming industry claim that without adequate protections, British agriculture could face further consolidation by large agribusinesses or foreign investors.

Political Reaction

The protest has reignited debate in Parliament, with several MPs voicing support for farmers. Conservative MP Richard Drax, himself from a farming background, stated:

“Farming is not just a business; it is a way of life. If we allow inheritance tax to destroy family farms, we risk losing centuries of agricultural heritage and food security.”

Labour MPs, while sympathetic to farmers’ concerns, stress the need for a balanced approach. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has previously suggested reviewing tax relief policies to ensure they support smaller farms rather than benefiting wealthy landowners disproportionately.

What Next

As tractors lined Westminster’s streets, causing significant disruption, farming leaders warned that this would not be the last protest if the government failed to act. With an election on the horizon, the issue of inheritance tax could become a flashpoint in rural constituencies, where the farming vote carries significant weight.

For now, farmers remain resolute. As one protester’s banner read: “No Farmers, No Food, No Future”—a stark warning to policymakers about the stakes of failing to support Britain’s agricultural sector.

Attached is a news article regarding farmers inheritance tax with tractor protests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14379747/amp/farmers-tractors-protest-parliament-inheritance-tax-live-updates.html

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by Smileband,

Rising Deportations: The Growing Crackdown on Migrants

The number of migrants being deported from Western countries has surged in recent years, with governments tightening their immigration policies amid political and economic pressures. The trend is particularly evident in the UK, US, and across Europe, where authorities are ramping up deportation efforts, often citing national security, illegal immigration, and overstretched public services as justifications.

A Shift in Immigration Policies

Governments worldwide have increasingly adopted stricter immigration policies in response to rising public concern over irregular migration. In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s administration has doubled down on its pledge to “stop the boats,” with new legislation making it easier to deport migrants who arrive illegally. The controversial Rwanda deportation plan, which aims to send asylum seekers to the East African nation instead of processing their claims in the UK, has faced legal battles but remains a key part of the government’s strategy.

Similarly, in the US, the Biden administration has expanded deportations despite initial promises of a more lenient immigration policy. The number of migrants expelled under Title 42, a pandemic-era policy allowing immediate deportations at the border, has been substantial. Even after its expiration, new restrictions on asylum seekers have kept deportation numbers high, with Mexico also stepping up enforcement to curb migration flows.

In Europe, countries such as France, Germany, and Italy have toughened their stance, particularly on migrants from Africa and the Middle East. French President Emmanuel Macron has increased deportations of individuals deemed security risks, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has introduced policies aimed at deterring new arrivals.

The Role of International Agreements

Many Western nations are increasingly relying on agreements with third-party countries to facilitate deportations. The UK’s deal with Rwanda is one example, while the European Union has made agreements with North African countries, such as Tunisia and Libya, to curb migration and return migrants intercepted in the Mediterranean.

However, these agreements have been met with criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that deported migrants often face persecution, violence, or economic hardship upon return. Reports of mistreatment in detention centers and failed asylum seekers being sent back to dangerous environments have raised ethical concerns.

Impact on Migrants and Human Rights Concerns

The rise in deportations has sparked widespread criticism from human rights groups, who warn of the potential violations of international law. Many migrants facing deportation have fled war, persecution, or economic hardship and may not have had fair access to asylum procedures. Critics argue that mass deportations fail to address the root causes of migration and instead push vulnerable individuals into more desperate situations.

Additionally, reports of heavy-handed deportation tactics, including the use of force and family separations, have led to public outcry. In the UK, the Home Office has been accused of detaining individuals in inhumane conditions before deporting them, while in the US, family deportations have raised concerns about the well-being of children caught in the immigration system.

Political and Economic Implications

The increase in deportations is closely tied to political shifts, with immigration becoming a central issue in elections across the world. Right-wing parties have gained ground in several countries by campaigning on tougher immigration policies, while centrist and left-leaning governments have also been pressured to adopt stricter measures to maintain public support.

Economically, the deportation of undocumented workers has raised concerns about labor shortages in sectors reliant on migrant labor, such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare. While governments argue that deportations help protect jobs for native workers, businesses warn that mass removals could lead to workforce gaps and economic disruptions.

What’s Next

As deportation rates continue to rise, debates over immigration policies are unlikely to subside. Governments face the challenge of balancing border control with humanitarian obligations, while migrants and advocacy groups continue to fight for fair treatment and due process.

With ongoing conflicts, climate change, and economic instability driving global migration, the issue of deportations will remain a key topic in international relations. The question remains: can governments implement effective migration policies without compromising human rights and ethical responsibilities.

Attached is a news article regarding illegal migrant deportations

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/more-than-600-immigration-arrests-in-january-as-government-expects-rise-in-deportations-13306102

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News Viewers, sponsored by Smileband,

In a significant escalation of immigration enforcement, the UK government has arrested thousands of individuals working illegally across the country. This intensified crackdown aligns with the government’s Plan for Change, emphasizing robust border security and the disruption of illegal employment networks.

Since assuming office, ministers have redeployed 1,000 additional personnel into Immigration Enforcement, leading to a substantial increase in operations targeting sectors known for employing illegal workers. Particular focus has been on car washes, nail bars, supermarkets, and construction sites, where individuals are often subjected to exploitative conditions, including substandard wages and excessive working hours.

Recent data indicates that illegal working operations and arrests have risen by nearly a third compared to the same period last year. This surge reflects the government’s commitment to addressing the allure of illegal employment, which is frequently exploited by criminal smuggling gangs to entice individuals into perilous journeys, such as small boat crossings of the Channel.

In London alone, enforcement teams have conducted nearly 1,000 visits in recent months, resulting in hundreds of arrests. Notably, a hotel in Kensington was the site of six agency staff arrests, five on suspicion of illegal working and one for overstaying a visa. This represents an 11% increase in enforcement activity in the capital since the July election.

The government has also announced plans to intensify operations further, aiming to dismantle the promise of illegal jobs that fuel criminal smuggling operations. This initiative includes increased action to disrupt smuggling networks and deter irregular migration, with the newly established Border Security Command targeting criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs.

Employers found to be hiring illegal workers face severe penalties, with fines reaching up to £45,000 per worker for a first offence and up to £60,000 for repeat offences. This stringent approach underscores the government’s zero-tolerance policy towards illegal employment practices.

The surge in enforcement activity is part of a broader strategy to uphold the integrity of the UK’s immigration system, protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation, and ensure that job opportunities are preserved for those legally entitled to work in the country.

Key Points: Thousands of Illegal Workers Arrested in Government Crackdown

1. Mass Arrests – Thousands of illegal workers have been detained across the UK as part of an intensified government border security operation.

2. Increased Immigration Enforcement – The government has redeployed 1,000 extra personnel, resulting in a nearly 30% rise in arrests compared to the previous year.

3. Targeted Sectors – Crackdowns have focused on car washes, nail bars, supermarkets, and construction sites, where illegal workers often face exploitation.

4. London as a Hotspot – Nearly 1,000 enforcement visits in London alone led to hundreds of arrests, reflecting an 11% increase in activity since July.

5. Employer Penalties – Businesses hiring illegal workers face fines of up to £45,000 per worker for a first offence and £60,000 for repeat offences.

6. Link to Human Smuggling – Officials argue that illegal job opportunities fuel criminal smuggling networks and encourage dangerous small boat crossings.

7. Border Security Expansion – The Border Security Command has been established to dismantle smuggling and trafficking gangs, reinforcing the UK’s strict immigration stance.

8. Government’s Justification – The crackdown aims to protect legal workers, prevent exploitation, and deter irregular migration while strengthening the immigration system.

Conclusion

The UK government’s intensified crackdown on illegal workers reflects a firm commitment to strengthening border security and tackling unlawful employment. By increasing immigration enforcement, imposing harsher penalties on businesses, and dismantling smuggling networks, officials aim to deter illegal migration while protecting legal workers from unfair competition. However, critics argue that such measures risk disproportionately targeting vulnerable individuals rather than addressing deeper systemic issues, such as labor shortages and exploitative work conditions. As enforcement operations continue to expand, the long-term impact on businesses, migrant communities, and the broader economy remains to be seen.

Attached is a news article regarding illegal workers arrested in border security crackdown

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/keir-starmer-labour-government-english-channel-bill-b2695099.html

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Sunday, 9 February 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

On February 10, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports into the United States, marking a significant escalation in his administration’s protectionist trade policies. This decision comes on the heels of a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, which prompted retaliatory measures from Beijing.

The new tariffs are set to take effect immediately and will apply to imports from all countries, including key allies such as Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Notably, President Trump hinted at a possible exemption for the United Kingdom, though no official confirmation has been provided.

In addition to the steel and aluminum tariffs, President Trump announced plans to implement “reciprocal tariffs” on countries that retaliate against U.S. protectionist measures. These reciprocal tariffs are expected to be detailed and enacted within the week.

The announcement has elicited varied reactions globally. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed concerns over the potential impact on Australia’s steel exports to the U.S., which amount to approximately $630 million annually. He plans to engage in discussions with President Trump to negotiate an exemption for Australia.

Market responses have been mixed. Shares of steel companies in Asia experienced declines, while those with operations in the U.S. remained stable. The U.S. dollar appreciated, and Treasury yields saw a slight uptick. Analysts have raised concerns about potential inflationary effects and the risk of escalating trade tensions leading to a broader economic slowdown.

This move is reminiscent of President Trump’s 2018 tariffs, where he imposed a 25% duty on steel and a 10% duty on aluminum imports, citing national security concerns. Those tariffs led to a series of international trade disputes and had mixed outcomes for the U.S. economy.

As the situation develops, businesses and investors are advised to monitor policy announcements closely and assess the potential impacts on global supply chains and market dynamics.

Attached is a news article regarding trump impose tariffs on steel

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98yv3e1yyqo.amp

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has recently made pointed remarks about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, highlighting his disapproval of the Duchess of Sussex. In a recent interview, Trump labeled Meghan as “terrible” and commented that Prince Harry has “enough problems with his wife.” Despite ongoing discussions about Prince Harry’s immigration status in the United States, Trump clarified that he has no intention of deporting the Duke, stating, “I will not deport Prince Harry despite his visa issues, saying the Duke has ‘enough problems’ with Meghan.”

This is not the first instance of tension between Trump and the Sussexes. The former president has previously criticized Meghan for being “very disrespectful to the Queen” and expressed that he is “not a fan of hers.” Additionally, Trump has suggested that Prince Harry has been “used horribly” by Meghan and predicted that the Prince would regret his decisions.

The scrutiny over Prince Harry’s U.S. residency intensified after he disclosed past drug use in his memoir, “Spare.” The conservative Heritage Foundation has questioned the legality of his visa approval, given these admissions. However, Trump has dismissed the idea of deportation, emphasizing that Harry already faces significant personal challenges.

In response to these developments, royal expert Hugo Vickers has advised Prince Harry and Meghan to remain silent on the visa issue, noting Trump’s known dislike for Meghan. Vickers emphasized that while Trump’s decision provides relief, the couple should avoid public commentary.

Despite the controversies, Prince Harry and Meghan have continued their public engagements, recently appearing together at the Invictus Games in Vancouver. Their displays of affection during the event have been interpreted by some as a deliberate show of unity in the face of people.

Here are the key points from Donald Trump’s recent comments on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry:

1. Trump Calls Meghan Markle “Terrible”

• In a recent interview, Donald Trump strongly criticized Meghan Markle, calling her “terrible.”

• He also stated that Prince Harry has “enough problems with his wife.”

2. Trump Rules Out Deporting Prince Harry

• Trump clarified that he will not deport Prince Harry, despite the ongoing controversy over his visa status.

• He said Harry has “enough problems” and dismissed the idea of taking action against him.

3. Prince Harry’s Visa Controversy

• The Heritage Foundation has questioned the legality of Prince Harry’s U.S. visa, citing his admission of past drug use in his memoir Spare.

• There have been calls for the U.S. government to release details of his visa application.

4. Trump’s Longstanding Criticism of Meghan

• Trump has previously criticized Meghan Markle for being “disrespectful to the Queen.”

• He has also claimed that Meghan has “used” Prince Harry and that their relationship could end badly.

5. Royal Experts Advise Harry and Meghan to Stay Quiet

• Royal expert Hugo Vickers has suggested the Sussexes avoid commenting on Trump’s remarks.

• He noted that Trump has a known dislike for Meghan and that engaging could worsen the situation.

6. Meghan and Harry Continue Public Engagements

• Despite criticism, Meghan and Harry recently appeared at the Invictus Games in Vancouver.

• Their public display of affection was seen as a show of unity in response to ongoing scrutiny.

Donald Trump’s latest remarks reinforce his long-standing criticism of Meghan Markle while making it clear that he has no intention of deporting Prince Harry. His comments reflect a broader political and media fascination with the Sussexes, particularly in the U.S., where Harry’s visa status remains a point of debate. Despite Trump’s attacks, Meghan and Harry continue to present a united front in public, with their recent appearance at the Invictus Games suggesting they are unfazed by the controversy. However, royal experts advise them to avoid engaging in the political drama, as further involvement could escalate tensions. With Trump potentially returning to the White House, the couple’s status in the U.S. may remain a contentious issue in the years ahead.

Attached is a news article regarding Donald Trump saying Megan markle is terrible and harry will not be deported

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/donald-trump-spares-harry-no-deportation-for-prince-but-calls-meghan-markle-terrible/amp_articleshow/118080712.cms

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

In a recent televised cabinet meeting, Colombian President Gustavo Petro asserted that “cocaine is no worse than whiskey” and suggested that its illegal status stems from its Latin American origins rather than its potential for harm. He proposed that global legalization of cocaine could effectively dismantle the illicit drug trade, stating, “It could easily be dismantled if they legalize cocaine in the world. It would be sold like wine.”

Colombia is the world’s leading producer and exporter of cocaine, primarily supplying the United States and Europe. Despite decades of combating drug trafficking, the country has seen a significant increase in coca cultivation and potential cocaine production, reaching record levels in recent years.

President Petro’s remarks come amid heightened tensions with the United States. Recently, a diplomatic dispute arose when Colombia initially refused to accept deportation flights from the U.S., leading to threats of punitive tariffs and visa revocations from President Donald Trump’s administration. Colombia eventually conceded, agreeing to accept the deportees.

In his address, Petro also highlighted the opioid crisis in the U.S., noting that fentanyl—a synthetic opioid responsible for a significant number of American deaths—is not produced in Colombia. He emphasized that fentanyl was developed by North American pharmaceutical companies and has led to widespread addiction.

These statements have sparked controversy, particularly in Washington, where the U.S. government has long advocated for strict drug prohibition policies. Critics argue that legalizing cocaine could lead to increased consumption and associated health risks, while supporters believe it could reduce drug-related violence and undermine illegal trafficking networks.

The debate over drug legalization continues to be a complex and contentious issue, balancing public health concerns, criminal justice implications, and international relations.

Here are the key points from Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s remarks on cocaine:

1. Cocaine vs. Whiskey Comparison – Petro claimed that “cocaine is no worse than whiskey,” arguing that its illegal status is due to its Latin American origins rather than its actual harm.

2. Advocating for Global Legalization – He suggested that legalizing cocaine worldwide could dismantle illegal drug cartels, stating it could be “sold like wine.”

3. Colombia’s Cocaine Production – As the world’s leading producer of cocaine, Colombia has seen record-high coca cultivation despite decades of U.S.-backed anti-drug efforts.

4. Tensions with the U.S. – Petro’s remarks come amid strained relations with Washington, especially after Colombia initially refused to accept deportation flights from the U.S., leading to threats from the Trump administration.

5. Criticism of U.S. Drug Policy – He highlighted the fentanyl crisis in the U.S., pointing out that the deadly opioid is produced by North American pharmaceutical companies, not Colombia.

6. Debate Over Legalization – His comments have sparked controversy, with critics warning of increased drug use risks, while supporters argue that legalization could reduce violence and drug trafficking.

President Gustavo Petro’s remarks on cocaine legalization have reignited a global debate on drug policy. By comparing cocaine to whiskey and arguing that its illegality is driven by geopolitical bias rather than actual harm, Petro challenges long-standing prohibitionist policies. His stance underscores Colombia’s struggle with the illicit drug trade and its complex relationship with the United States, particularly amid diplomatic tensions over deportation policies.

While his proposal has drawn criticism—especially from Washington—supporters believe it could help reduce drug-related violence and undermine criminal cartels. However, concerns over potential public health risks and increased consumption remain significant obstacles to any shift in global drug policy. Ultimately, Petro’s comments highlight the growing calls for a reassessment of the war on drugs, but whether his vision of a legal cocaine market gains traction remains to be seen.

Attached is a news article regarding the Columbia’s president saying that cocaine should be legal

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/07/americas/cocaine-whiskey-colombian-president-intl-hnk

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley