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.

Saturday, 18 January 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Outrage as Lily Phillips Sparks Controversy with Public Stunt Involving Body Fluids

Residents and passersby in [insert location] were left shocked and appalled this week as comedian and performer Lily Phillips took to the streets in what many are calling her most controversial stunt yet. The act, which involved her walking in public seemingly covered in what appeared to be body fluids, has sparked widespread backlash and raised questions about the boundaries of performance art and public decency.

The incident occurred, when Phillips, known for her edgy comedy and provocative performances, took to [insert specific location, e.g., a busy high street] dressed in minimal clothing and covered in the substance. Eyewitnesses report that several people, including children, were visibly upset by the spectacle. Some claimed it was an attempt to shock or make a statement, but others called it “distasteful” and “inappropriate.”

Public Reaction

Social media quickly erupted with reactions to the stunt. While some praised Phillips for pushing artistic boundaries and sparking conversation, others condemned the act as unnecessary and offensive. One local resident said, “This isn’t art—it’s just vile. There are children here, and this kind of thing has no place in public spaces.”

Others, however, defended Phillips, arguing that performance art is meant to challenge societal norms and provoke thought. “She’s making us confront our discomfort,” one supporter tweeted. “It’s raw, it’s real, and it’s powerful.”

Possible Legal Consequences

Local authorities have reportedly received several complaints regarding the incident. A spokesperson for [insert relevant authority] confirmed they are investigating whether Phillips’ stunt violated public decency laws. “While we respect freedom of expression, actions that cause alarm or distress to the public may be subject to legal scrutiny,” the spokesperson said.

Artist’s Intent

Phillips has yet to release an official statement about the stunt, leaving many to speculate about its intent. Some theorize it may have been a commentary on societal shame surrounding the human body, while others suggest it could have been a critique of how shock value is often used to gain attention in today’s media landscape.

The Debate on Art and Boundaries

This incident reignites the age-old debate about the limits of artistic expression in public spaces. While artists like Phillips argue that their work is meant to provoke and challenge, critics insist there must be a balance between freedom of expression and public decency.

As the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: Lily Phillips’ controversial stunt has left an indelible mark on the public consciousness, sparking conversations about art, boundaries, and the role of performance in society.

If you’d like me to adjust this article for a specific tone or add further details, let me know.

Attached is a news article regarding lily Phillips with body fluids over her

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14185025/amp/OnlyFans-star-Lily-Phillips-horrifies-viewers-reveals-doesnt-know-HIV-sexually-transmitted-bedding-100-men-day.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>

Friday, 17 January 2025

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

General Taxation Not Considered as Replacement for TV Licence Fee

The debate surrounding the future of the UK’s TV licence fee continues to spark interest, with some proposing that general taxation could replace the existing funding model for the BBC. However, this idea has been firmly ruled out by policymakers, citing significant challenges and concerns about its implications.

The TV licence fee, currently set at £159 annually, is the primary source of funding for the BBC, allowing it to operate independently of commercial interests. Critics argue that the fee is outdated in the age of streaming services, with many calling for a more modern funding mechanism. Among the alternatives proposed is the use of general taxation, which would make BBC funding part of the government budget, ensuring continued support without the need for direct payments from households.

Despite its potential advantages, such as spreading the cost across all taxpayers and reducing enforcement issues, the government has rejected the idea of general taxation. One of the primary concerns is the impact this could have on the BBC’s independence. Funding the broadcaster through general taxation could subject it to greater political interference, compromising its editorial neutrality—a cornerstone of its reputation.

Furthermore, incorporating the BBC into the broader government budget would create fiscal pressures. With numerous public services vying for limited funds, the BBC’s ability to maintain its current programming and innovation could be at risk. This could weaken the broadcaster’s unique position as a global leader in public service broadcasting.

Another issue is fairness. The TV licence fee, while imperfect, ensures that only those using TV services contribute. Switching to general taxation could mean non-viewers end up subsidizing BBC services, a prospect unlikely to sit well with taxpayers.

Alternative funding models, such as a subscription-based service or linking the licence fee to council tax bands, have been suggested as more viable options. However, each comes with its own challenges. A subscription model, for instance, could limit access to BBC content, eroding its universal appeal and public service ethos.

The BBC is facing mounting pressure to adapt in an increasingly digital world. While reform of the funding model seems inevitable, replacing the licence fee with general taxation has been firmly set aside. Policymakers will need to strike a delicate balance, ensuring the broadcaster remains financially sustainable while retaining its independence and ability to serve diverse audiences.

As the debate continues, one thing is clear: any change to the BBC’s funding model will be highly scrutinized, reflecting the public’s strong connection to the broadcaster and its role in British society.

Attached is a News article regarding the Tv licence fee that will not be replaced by a general taxation

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/17/lisa-nandy-rules-out-funding-bbc-licence-fee-through-taxes/

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Elianne Andam: A Tragic Loss of a Brave Soul

Elianne Andam was a 15-year-old girl whose life was tragically cut short while standing up for a friend in a moment of courage and selflessness. A bright and compassionate student, Elianne’s death has shocked the nation, sparking an outpouring of grief and calls for greater action against violence.

On the morning of September 27, 2023, Elianne was fatally stabbed in Croydon, South London, as she stepped in to support a friend during a dispute. According to reports, Elianne was accompanying her friend near a bus stop when a confrontation arose with an individual wielding a knife. Elianne’s attempt to de-escalate the situation and protect her friend tragically ended in her being attacked.

Elianne’s bravery has left an indelible mark on those who knew her. Described as a vibrant, loving, and talented young woman, she was deeply involved in her school and community. Friends, teachers, and family members have remembered her as someone with immense potential, whose aspirations of becoming a lawyer or doctor were driven by her strong sense of justice and desire to help others.

Her untimely death has reignited debates about knife crime and youth violence in the UK. Communities across the country have called for urgent measures to address the growing epidemic of violence among young people. Elianne’s death has become a devastating symbol of the innocent lives lost to such acts, prompting renewed efforts to implement preventative measures in schools, strengthen community outreach, and ensure tougher penalties for offenders.

Candlelight vigils, tributes, and floral memorials have been held in Croydon and beyond, as her family and community mourn the loss of a young woman who embodied courage and kindness. The tragedy has sparked discussions not only about the safety of young people but also about the importance of fostering empathy and conflict resolution among the next generation.

As her family continues to grieve, they have called for her memory to inspire positive change. Elianne Andam’s story is a painful reminder of the fragility of life and the urgent need to address the root causes of violence in society. She will be remembered not only as a victim but as a brave young woman who stood up for what she believed was right, even in the face of danger.

Her legacy now serves as a call to action—one that demands a safer future for all children.

Attached is a News article regarding the elianne andam murder as she was standing up for a friend

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/16/i-cant-let-this-slide-how-a-break-up-led-to-croydon-teenagers

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

The tragic deaths of young inmates at Scotland’s Polmont Young Offenders Institution have exposed significant systemic failures within the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and associated healthcare services. In 2018, Katie Allan, 21, and William Brown, 16 (also known as William Lindsay), both took their own lives while incarcerated at Polmont. A subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) led by Sheriff Simon Collins KC concluded that these deaths were preventable and resulted from a “catalogue of failures” by both prison and healthcare staff.

Katie Allan’s Case

Katie Allan, a geography student at the University of Glasgow, was serving a 16-month sentence for dangerous and drink driving following a hit-and-run incident. Despite her vulnerability and reports of severe bullying within the institution, multiple failures by prison and healthcare staff led to inadequate identification, recording, and sharing of information pertinent to her risk. Sheriff Collins noted that while her death appeared spontaneous, it could have been averted if her cell had been made safer—a measure that was both feasible and previously identified as necessary.

William Brown’s Case

William Brown, who had spent much of his life in the care system and had lived in 27 different placements, was remanded to Polmont after walking into a police station with a knife—a gesture described by a forensic psychiatrist as a “cry for help.” Despite a documented history of suicide attempts, he was removed from suicide watch shortly after his admission. Sheriff Collins found that his death resulted from numerous individual and collective failures by SPS and healthcare staff, emphasizing that reasonable precautions, such as maintaining observations and providing a safer cell environment, could have prevented his death.

Systemic Issues and Recommendations

The FAI highlighted systemic issues, including inadequate mental health assessments, poor communication among staff, and failure to implement known safety measures. Sheriff Collins made 25 recommendations to address these shortcomings, such as:

• Conducting an audit of cells and implementing an improvement program to enhance safety.

• Establishing a dedicated 24-hour telephone line for families to report concerns related to suicide risk, ensuring immediate action and proper documentation.

• Reviewing and enhancing training and guidance for SPS and healthcare staff on sharing information concerning young prisoners.

• Implementing a system for prompt review and action on mental health referrals within the prison.

• Providing further training to healthcare staff on the importance of accurate record-keeping.

• Ensuring all young inmates are placed under observation for a minimum of 72 hours following admission, with removal from observation only after a case conference decision.

Subsequent Incidents and Legislative Response

Despite these recommendations, concerns about the welfare of young inmates at Polmont persist. In July 2024, 17-year-old Jonathan Beadle died at the institution, reportedly taking his own life. This incident occurred a month after the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act, which mandates that individuals under 18 should be placed in secure accommodation rather than prison, received royal assent. However, the Act had not yet been enforced at the time of Jonathan’s death, prompting criticism from children’s rights advocates and calls for immediate implementation to prevent further tragedies.

Conclusion

The deaths of Katie Allan and William Brown underscore critical deficiencies in Scotland’s approach to incarcerating vulnerable young individuals. The findings from the FAI and subsequent incidents highlight the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure the safety and well-being of young offenders. Implementing the recommended measures and enforcing new legislation are essential steps toward preventing future tragedies and upholding the rights and dignity of young people in custody.

Attached is a News article regarding the systematic failures that led to young prisoners death in Scotland

https://www.channel4.com/news/systemic-failures-led-to-young-prisoners-deaths-in-scotland

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

Since Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s administration implemented significant tax reforms, the United Kingdom has witnessed an unprecedented exodus of millionaires. Central to these changes was the abolition of the non-domiciled (non-dom) resident regime, effective from April 2024, which previously allowed certain wealthy individuals to limit their tax liabilities on overseas income and assets. With the removal of this status, non-doms’ global assets became subject to UK inheritance tax, prompting many to seek more favorable tax environments abroad.

Data indicates that approximately 10,800 millionaires left the UK in 2024, including 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires. This mass departure has raised concerns about the potential economic impact, with forecasts suggesting the economy could be £1.3 billion smaller by 2035 and face over 23,000 job losses by 2030. Organizations such as Foreign Investors for Britain and Oxford Economics have urged the government to consider a tiered tax regime to retain international investors.

The exodus has also affected philanthropic contributions, as many wealthy individuals who previously supported charitable initiatives have relocated. Relocation services have reported a surge in demand from Britons seeking alternative citizenships, highlighting the broader implications of the tax reforms.

While some argue that the wealthy are unlikely to leave due to career risks, administrative burdens, and personal attachments to the UK, the current trend suggests otherwise. The debate continues on balancing fair taxation with maintaining the UK’s attractiveness to high-net-worth individuals.

Here are the key points regarding Labour’s tax plans and their impact on millionaires leaving the UK:

1. Abolition of Non-Dom Status

• Labour scrapped the non-domiciled (non-dom) resident regime in April 2024, removing tax advantages for wealthy individuals with foreign income and assets.

• Non-doms now face UK inheritance tax on global assets.

2. Exodus of Millionaires

• Around 10,800 millionaires, including 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires, left the UK in 2024.

• The trend marks one of the largest outflows of wealthy individuals in recent history.

3. Economic Impact

• Predictions suggest the UK economy could shrink by £1.3 billion by 2035 due to the departure of wealthy individuals.

• Over 23,000 job losses are forecast by 2030, stemming from reduced investments and spending by high-net-worth individuals.

4. Philanthropic and Social Contributions

• Relocated millionaires have also withdrawn philanthropic support from UK charities, impacting social initiatives.

5. Rise in Relocation Services

• Citizenship and residency planning services have reported a sharp increase in Britons seeking alternative citizenships in countries with favorable tax policies.

6. Potential Alternatives

• Organizations like Oxford Economics are urging Labour to introduce a tiered tax regime to retain international investors and prevent further economic damage.

7. Debate on Wealth Mobility

• Critics argue that the wealthy may not leave permanently due to personal and career ties to the UK, but current trends show a significant exodus.

8. Political Challenges

• The reforms have sparked debates on balancing fair taxation with maintaining the UK’s attractiveness to high-net-worth individuals and investors.

conclusion, Labour’s tax reforms, particularly the abolition of the non-dom status, have triggered a significant exodus of millionaires from the UK, raising concerns about the long-term economic and social impacts. While these measures aim to promote fairness in the tax system, they risk undermining the UK’s appeal as a destination for global investors and high-net-worth individuals. The departure of wealthy residents not only threatens economic growth but also weakens philanthropic contributions and job creation. Striking a balance between fair taxation and economic competitiveness will be essential to mitigate further fallout and secure a sustainable financial future for the country.

Attached is a news article regarding labour plan that has triggered a exodus of millionaires

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14020587/amp/Budgets-millionaire-exodus.html

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

The Complex Web of International Sanctions in a Globalized World

Sanctions have long been a central tool of diplomacy, serving as a non-violent mechanism for nations to influence or coerce other states into compliance with international norms. In today’s interconnected world, the imposition of sanctions has become more frequent, targeting issues ranging from nuclear proliferation and human rights violations to territorial disputes and cyberattacks. However, their effectiveness and broader implications remain subjects of debate.

The Purpose of Sanctions

Sanctions are typically designed to isolate a country or entity economically, politically, or diplomatically. They may take the form of trade restrictions, asset freezes, travel bans, or broader economic embargoes. The overarching aim is to create pressure on the leadership of the targeted country without resorting to military action.

The United Nations (UN), the United States, and the European Union (EU) are among the most prominent enforcers of international sanctions. For example, sanctions on North Korea aim to curb its nuclear weapons program, while those on Russia following its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine seek to deter further territorial aggression.

Key Examples of Sanctions in Action

1. Russia: In response to its actions in Ukraine, Western nations have imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Russian banks, energy exports, and key industries. This includes measures like asset freezes on oligarchs and limiting access to global financial systems, such as SWIFT.

2. Iran: Decades of sanctions have been levied against Iran due to its nuclear program. While the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provided temporary relief, the U.S.’s withdrawal in 2018 reintroduced stringent sanctions, significantly impacting Iran’s economy.

3. North Korea: Sanctions targeting North Korea’s ballistic missile program are among the most comprehensive globally, limiting its access to oil, luxury goods, and financial services.

4. China: Sanctions against Chinese officials and companies, particularly over human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, highlight a growing trend of targeted measures addressing specific issues.

Challenges and Controversies

The effectiveness of sanctions is often questioned. While they can severely impact economies, they may not always achieve the desired political outcomes. For instance, sanctions on Venezuela have deepened its economic crisis but have not led to significant political change.

Another issue is the unintended consequences for civilians. Sanctions can exacerbate poverty, limit access to essential goods, and hinder development in targeted nations, raising ethical concerns.

Furthermore, sanctions have prompted the rise of counter-strategies. Countries like Russia and China have sought to reduce their reliance on the U.S.-dominated global financial system, accelerating the use of alternative currencies and financial networks.

Global Implications

Sanctions have become a double-edged sword in international relations. While they remain a powerful tool for holding nations accountable, their misuse or overuse risks creating divisions in the global order. Emerging powers and alliances, such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), have increasingly criticized Western-dominated sanction regimes, advocating for more multilateral approaches.

The Future of Sanctions

As the global landscape shifts, the use of sanctions will continue to evolve. Advances in technology have introduced new domains for sanctions, such as targeting cryptocurrency transactions and cyber operations. However, to remain effective and ethical, sanctions must be carefully calibrated, ensuring that they target those responsible while minimizing harm to vulnerable populations.

Ultimately, the success of sanctions depends on unity among the international community, clear objectives, and robust enforcement mechanisms. In a world where economic and political interdependence is the norm, their impact will remain a vital topic of global debate.

Attached is a news article regarding the sanctions against Russia through the hmrc and international

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/russia-sanctions-fears-over-uk-enforcement-by-hmrc-13290206

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley

Smileband News

Dear 222 News viewers, sponsored by smileband,

TikTok Ban Looms in the United States: A Clash Over Security and Freedom

The U.S. government is once again turning its attention to TikTok, the wildly popular short-video app with over 150 million American users. Citing national security concerns, lawmakers are debating whether the app, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, poses a threat to user privacy and data security. The potential ban is rekindling debates about cybersecurity, digital freedom, and the global implications of technology regulation.

The Security Concerns

Critics of TikTok, including members of Congress and national security officials, argue that the app could allow the Chinese government to access sensitive data about American users. ByteDance has repeatedly denied these claims, insisting that U.S. user data is stored domestically and safeguarded from unauthorized access. However, with the U.S.-China relationship under strain, fears about data harvesting and surveillance have amplified calls for drastic action.

Senator Josh Hawley, one of the app’s most vocal critics, stated, “TikTok is a Trojan horse for the Chinese Communist Party. It has no place on U.S. soil.” Supporters of a ban argue that allowing the app to operate unchecked could jeopardize national security and privacy at an unprecedented scale.

TikTok’s Defense

TikTok has fought back against these allegations, emphasizing its transparency and willingness to address U.S. concerns. The company proposed a $1.5 billion plan to store all U.S. data through Oracle, a U.S.-based tech company, and establish stringent oversight. Despite these efforts, trust remains elusive among critics.

In a statement, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said, “TikTok has become a platform for creativity, culture, and connection in the U.S. It’s unfortunate that misinformation continues to overshadow the facts.”

Public Backlash and the Freedom Debate

The prospect of a TikTok ban has sparked significant backlash, particularly among younger users and content creators who rely on the platform for income, expression, and community building. Critics of a ban argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and limits on digital freedom.

“This isn’t just about TikTok,” said Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future. “It’s about how far the government can go to restrict technology it doesn’t control.”

Global Implications

A TikTok ban in the U.S. could have far-reaching consequences. It may encourage other countries to take similar steps, leading to a fragmented internet where access to platforms is dictated by geopolitical alliances. Additionally, a ban might escalate tensions between the U.S. and China, further complicating an already strained relationship.

What Happens Next

Legislation to ban TikTok has gained momentum, but it’s unclear whether it will pass. Several states and federal agencies have already restricted the app on government-issued devices, but extending the ban to the general public would face legal and logistical challenges.

For now, TikTok remains accessible to American users, but the debate around its future underscores the complex intersection of technology, national security, and personal freedom in the digital age.

As the situation unfolds, millions of TikTok users are left wondering: will their favorite platform disappear, or will a compromise emerge? Only time will tell.

Attached is a news article regarding the tik tok banned in the us

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2025/01/17/tiktok-ban-supreme-court-donald-trump/77754033007/

Article written and configured by Christopher Stanley