A major confrontation is brewing over the Centre’s plan to introduce the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill during the ongoing session of Parliament. CPI(M) MP John Brittas has formally urged Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Dharmendra Pradhan to pause the legislative push.
warning that the government is attempting to advance a sweeping regulatory overhaul without transparency. According to the PTI report, Brittas wrote to the ministers,
Brittas highlighted that the draft bill has not been made public and that no consultations have occurred with state governments.
universities, teachers’ bodies, or students. He stressed that pushing the bill forward without scrutiny would violate democratic norms and expose the higher-education sector to “far-reaching consequences”.
Why India’s New Right To Disconnect Bill Could Transform Work Culture, Protect Millions From Burnout
The opaque process is at the heart of criticism.
The MP’s letter, as reported by the PTI, warns that the government’s approach raises fundamental questions about accountability and the bypassing of federal principles.
Brittas urged the Centre to either withhold the bill or refer it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee to ensure a full examination of its provisions.
Bill aims to reshape regulatory governance
The proposed HECI framework seeks to consolidate multiple existing regulators, including the University Grants Commission and bodies overseeing technical and teacher education, into a single apex authority. While the Centre argues the move aligns with the National Education Policy 2020,
Critics fear the consolidation will centralise decision-making and weaken the autonomy of institutions that currently operate under diverse governance structures.
Autonomy, federalism and public funding in the spotlight
As detailed in the PTI report, Brittas cautioned that the Bill could erode academic independence and potentially shift public institutions toward models dependent on central control.
He argued that such a transformation requires broad consultation, especially given its potential to reshape funding, accreditation, and institutional freedoms.
Resistance likely to escalate
With the bill listed for introduction this session, political and academic pushback is expected to intensify.
Opposition parties, university groups, and teacher unions have already flagged concerns about the center’s opaque approach and the risks it poses to India’s federal highereducation framework.
Government response awaited
The Education Ministry has not issued any public clarification so far. If the Bill is introduced without releasing the draft for scrutiny,
The government may face significant resistance on the floor of Parliament—setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation over control, autonomy and the future structure of Indian higher education. (With inputs from PTI)
A letter from Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex has now reached her estranged father, who is in hospital in the Philippines.
Thomas Markle, who has reportedly had his left lower leg amputated, told the Mail on Sunday he does not want to die while distanced from his daughter.
He said he wishes to meet his grandchildren, Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, as well as Meghan’s husband, the Duke of Sussex.
A spokesperson for the duchess said it “has been exceedingly difficult for her to contact her father privately, despite her efforts over the past several days.”
But, as the spokesperson added, Meghan’s letter “is now safely in his hands” thanks to the support of “reliable and trusted contacts.”
On Friday, a spokesperson for the Duchess said she had attempted to reach out to him in hospital but had been unable to locate him.
Mr Markle, who moved from Mexico to live in the Philippines, told the newspaper he had not received any messages to his usual phone number.
According to the PA news agency, the Duchess does not have his phone number and believes he lacks access to his phone while in hospital.
Her team confirmed she had emailed her dad, but the paper reported that he “never uses email.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Daily Mail’s parent company DMG Media confirmed that its journalist, Caroline Graham, “has had a close relationship with Mr Markle since 2018”.
They said Mr Markle – a retired TV lighting director, who previously suffered a heart attack – “contacted Ms Graham when he was taken ill and asked her to travel to the Philippines to be with him”.
They added, “Ms. Graham has said she would help Mr. Markle and his daughter talk.” “That remains the case.”
On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the duchess said: “Given that a Daily Mail reporter has remained at her father’s bedside throughout, broadcasting each interaction and breaching clear ethical boundaries, it has been exceedingly difficult for the Duchess to contact her father privately, despite her efforts over the past several days.
“With the support of reliable and trusted contacts, her correspondence is now safely in his hands.”
Meghan ever resumed any proper relationship,
The relationship between Meghan and her father broke down in the run-up to her wedding to Prince Harry in 2018.
During the couple’s engagement, the media interest in Thomas Markle and his family was intense.
Mr. Markle was found to have colluded with photographers, who paid him for photos that appeared to show him preparing for the wedding.
The fallout saw him pull out of his daughter’s wedding just days before the ceremony in Windsor, citing health problems.
King Charles III – who was then the Prince of Wales – walked Meghan down the aisle instead.
It is not clear if Meghan ever resumed any proper relationship with her father following her marriage.
He was critical of his daughter’s and his son-in-law’s decision to step back from public duty in the UK and criticise the royal family.
In one media interview he said: “I think they’re both turning into lost souls at this point.”
“I don’t know what they’re looking for,” he added. “I don’t think they know what they’re looking for.”
On Sunday, Mr Markle told the Mail, “I’ve always said I am open to reconciling with my daughter. I have never stopped loving her.
“I don’t want to die estranged from Meghan. I want to meet my grandkids. It might be nice to meet her husband too.”
Urban air travel is finally getting real attention. Cities are desperate for better ways to move people and things, and electric air taxis and drones have gone from wild sci-fi ideas to actual plans.
Now, engineers are working on small aircraft that can zip over traffic jams, carrying folks or packages across town in a fraction of the usual time. It’s not just wishful thinking; urban planners are starting to figure out where these things fit in the big picture. To get ready, NASA’s building new systems to handle all that flying traffic safely.
They want to keep things organised, avoid mid-air chaos, and make sure everything runs smoothly, even when the skies get crowded. A recent NASA simulation showed these tools can actually work, keeping urban air travel safe and reliable as it ramps up in the next few years.
How NASA plans to keep drones and air taxis from crossing paths
NASA’s latest invention is the Strategic Deconfliction Simulation. It’s a mouthful, but basically, it’s about making sure air taxis and drones don’t bump into each other when the skies get busy.
The idea is simple: coordinate flight plans before takeoff so two aircraft don’t try to occupy the same patch of air at the same time. They simulated it at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. Picture hundreds of drones and taxis all flying over a city at once.
The test focused on organising flight plans to cut down on delays and maintain enough distance between every aircraft from start to finish.
Smart tools for smoother flights
At the event, researchers rolled out two big tools: the Situational Viewer and the Demand Capacity Balancing Monitor. The Situational Viewer makes it easy to see everything in the sky, right as it happens.
where each drone or taxi is, how much space they’re using, and how busy things are getting. The Demand Capacity Balancing Monitor jumps in when the airspace starts to look crowded.
tweaking flight plans to keep everything moving and avoid logjams. For the test, NASA focused on Dallas-Fort Worth, running simulated flights to see how planning could prevent chaos and keep things safe. By mixing up traffic patterns, they learnt how to balance demand with what the airspace can actually handle.
Teaming up with industry
NASA knows they can’t pull the task off alone. That’s why they’re working with companies building drones, air taxis, and the software to keep them in line. ANRA Technologies joined the latest demo, showing off their systems that keep track of whole fleets and manage operations on the ground.
Think takeoffs, landings, and everything in between. By combining NASA’s research with industry tools, the simulation proved that different systems can play harmoniously together, making things safer and more efficient.
Why bother with simulations
Testing in a safe, controlled way matters a lot. Hanbong Lee, an engineer at NASA Ames, says simulations help everyone figure out how drones and other new flying machines can safely share the sky. The data they collect isn’t just useful to NASA;
It helps the whole industry move forward. In the end, all this work is about making urban air travel safe, reliable, and something people actually trust. As more companies roll out electric air taxis, the need to manage hundreds of flights per hour in a single city is only going to grow.
NASA’s research is laying the groundwork for this new way to get around. This demo is just one step. NASA’s planning a bigger, more advanced simulation in 2026 that will push the limits even further and help nail down what services cities need to manage all this new traffic.
All of this is part of NASA’s Air Mobility Pathfinders project, finding ways for air taxis and drones to work in America’s cities without a hitch. NASA aims to improve air traffic management by conducting additional tests and developing more advanced systems.
NASA’s getting ready for a future where air taxis and drones aren’t just a novelty; they’re an everyday part of city life. NASA’s latest simulation isn’t just a tech showcase.
It’s a big leap toward making urban air travel practical, safe, and ready for the real world.
All tourists – including those from Britain – will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country’s border force.
Currently, Britons are among those who can visit for up to 90 days without a visa. All they need to do is purchase an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ESTA) for $40 (£30).
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing a potential social media mandate that would apply to all visitors, regardless of their visa requirements.
According to a notice published in America’s Federal Register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.
Image: Pic: iStock
It will be “mandatory” to hand over the information, and other details – including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as well as the names, addresses, numbers, and birthdays of family members – will also be required.
Currently, as part of the ESTA application process, a tourist from Britain would have to provide an email address, home address, phone number, and emergency contact details. If approved, the ESTA lasts for two years.
CBP is proposing that moving forward, ESTA applications would require a selfie.
It further wants to collect biometrics – face, fingerprints, DNA and iris – as part of the ESTA application. It currently only records faces and fingerprints upon arrival at the US border.
The proposed changes are open for public consultation for 60 days.
Image: The image depicts an ESTA application form. Pic: iStock
who was turned away at the US border in March
There have been several reports of travellers having already been denied entry into the US over social media posts and messages found on their personal devices after President Donald Trump took office in January.
This includes a French scientist who was turned away at the US border in March after messages “that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism” were found on his phone.
Despite Mr. Trump vowing to “restore freedom of speech” on online platforms and end “federal censorship” when he took office, he has found himself at the centre of various free speech debates since.
In September, talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off-air by Disney-owned ABC over comments he made about the assassination of the right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.
Mr. Kimmel accused the Trump administration and its allies of “working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk,” with the president among those who pinned it on left-wing extremism.
Image: President Donald Trump has been at the centre of several free speech rows. Pic: AP
At the time, Mr Trump suggested certain networks should have their licences revoked over a lack of support for him.
Mr Kimmel’s show was reinstated less than a week after his suspension following widespread backlash from celebrities and viewers. This is the reality of Trump’s trade war Trump’s verdict on America’s traditional allies
And in April, Harvard University sued the Trump administration for seeking “unprecedented and improper” control of the school, after it froze $2.6bn (£1.9bn) of its federal funding.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the government of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a list of 10 demands from a federal antisemitism task force, which included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions.
A judge ruled in September that the Trump administration’s freeze of billions in research funding to Harvard was unconstitutional and retaliatory, a decision the US government vowed to appeal.
An agreement has not yet been reached, so the fight between the Ivy League university and Mr Trump rages on.
Baroness Anne Longfield was the children’s commissioner for England from 2015 to 2021
A former children’s commissioner will chair the government’s inquiry into child sexual abuse by grooming gangs.
Baroness Anne Longfield will lead the inquiry, which was derailed in October when four women resigned from its survivors panel and two leading candidates to chair the investigation pulled out.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said, “We must root out this evil once and for all,” and the three-year inquiry will be a “moment of reckoning,” as she announced the appointment in the Commons.
The prime minister announced the inquiry for England and Wales in June, accepting the recommendation of Baroness Louise Casey’s audit into the evidence on the scale of group-based child sexual abuse.
Baroness Longfield will be joined by panellists Zoe Billingham CBE, a former inspector at HM Constabulary, and Eleanor Kelly CBE, former chief executive of Southwark Council, to lead the inquiry.
Mahmood said Longfield and the two panellists had been recommended by Baroness Casey following “recent engagement with victims” and would meet survivors later this week.
On her appointment, Baroness Longfield said the inquiry “owes it to the victims, survivors and the wider public to identify the truth, address past failings and ensure that children and young people today are protected in a way that others were not”.
Fiona Goddard – one of the survivors who quit the inquiry in October – said those still serving on the panel had “not been consulted at all on the chair”.
“They have been overlooked and just used to give the impression of victim engagement,” she wrote on X.
She also criticised the selection of Baroness Longfield, who will resign the Labour whip in the House of Lords to chair the inquiry.
“That doesn’t change a lifetime of representing Labour’s best interests,” Ms Goddard said, arguing that the inquiry was not “independent” of the government.
The inquiry will comprise a series of targeted local investigations into the group-based child sexual exploitation of girls by grooming gangs, overseen by a national panel.
Mahmood said one of these would be in Oldham, Greater Manchester, with the other locations to be decided.
No area will be able to “resist” a local investigation during the inquiry, she added, which would last three years with a budget of £65m under draft terms of reference.
The inquiry will also “specifically” consider the backgrounds of offenders, including their ethnicity and religion.
Responding in the Commons, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called for an apology from the prime minister for having “disgracefully smeared those calling for an inquiry as far-right” earlier this year.
In January, Sir Keir Starmer dismissed calls for a national inquiry, arguing the scandal had already been examined in a seven-year inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay.
He also suggested those calling for an investigation were “jumping on a bandwagon” and “amplifying” the demands of the far-right”. The scandal had returned to prominence partly because of tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was criticising the prime minister for not calling a national inquiry.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, meanwhile, said progress on the inquiry was welcome but survivors have been waiting too long for an inquiry they can trust.
“They have been ignored, dismissed and made to feel invisible. They are the ultimate judges of whether this inquiry is credible,” she said.
The inquiry was thrown into chaos earlier this year when four women resigned from its survivors liaison panel in protest at how the government had handled the process so far.
They called for Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips to resign, accusing her of “betrayal” for denying claims the investigation might be broadened beyond grooming gangs.
They also expressed doubts about two candidates proposed to chair the inquiry because one had a background in social work and the other as a senior police officer – two professions facing questions about trust.
At the time, Phillips denied claims of a cover-up and insisted the government was “committed to exposing the failures”.
Five other abuse survivors wrote to the prime minister to say they would only continue working with the inquiry if Phillips kept her job.
A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.
Espen Barth Eide explained that this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s entire future “on the line.”
It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree on a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.
Ukraine war latest: Trump says Putin has upper hand in peace talks
“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.
“But I am worried that we might push this to what, in quotation marks, is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”
Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.
“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.
“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”
He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.
“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.
Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’
Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.
“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”
Progress being made on peace talks
Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.
That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.
But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.
“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”
Google plans to launch smart glasses powered by artificial intelligence (AI) in 2026, after its previous high-profile attempt to enter the market ended in failure.
The tech giant set expectations high in 2013 when it unveiled Google Glass, billed by some as the future of technology despite its odd appearance with a bulky screen positioned above the right eye.
Google pulled the product in 2015, less than seven months after its UK release, but is now planning on re-entering the market with smart glasses with a cleaner look.
But it comes after Meta has already made waves with its smart specs, which have sold two million pairs as of February.
Google’s new tech will let users interact with its AI products, such as its chatbot Gemini.
It plans to launch two different varieties – one designed to provide assistance without any kind of screen, and another which has a display on the glasses themselves.
Google has not said what the first of the two types of AI glasses it is working on will be, but it will be ready in 2026.
Technology analyst Paolo Pescatore told the BBC that the tech firm “must avoid the pitfalls of its previous failed attempts.”
“Arguably, the move was ahead of its time, poorly conceived and executed,” he said.
“Now represents an opportune moment, thanks to the success of Gemini.”
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Google co-founder Sergey Brin demonstrated Google Glass on stage at an event in 2012.
Google will also have to contend with Meta, which unveiled its own AI-powered glasses earlier this year, having built on its existing collaborations with luxury eyewear brands Ray-Ban and Oakley.
According to market research firm Counterpoint Research, the sector saw a surge in the first half of 2025, driven by demand for Meta’s devices and the launch of similar products by smaller brands.
It said sales of AI glasses had grown by more than 250% compared to the previous year.
Google Glass was launched in 2013 as a pair of thin, wireframe glasses with a chunky right arm to accommodate a camera built into the corner of the right lens.
Wearers could use the camera to take images and record their surroundings while simultaneously interacting with a digital display.
The device created a lot of excitement when it first appeared at a Google event in June 2012.
But after its launch the following year, concerns about its impact on privacy, potential for abuse and questions about its style and usefulness arose – and grew until Google said it would stop making them in that form in 2015.
A revamped version, Google Glass Enterprise, appeared two years later but was retired in 2023.
Former BBC Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones was among those who deemed Google’s device in its initial form “a failure.”
The success of so-called wearable computers, he wrote, would likely depend on having the tech to bring their potential to life and them being “both attractive to wear and so easy to use that you forget that you have them on”.
Today, tech giants have tried to make AI and smart glasses more wearable by partnering with designer eyewear brands – and can pack more power and features into smaller, sleeker frames.
But there remain concerns about privacy and usability.
Mossbourne Victoria Park is one of England’s high-achieving comprehensives
A secondary school in east London celebrated for its high academic results fostered a “particularly harmful” disciplinary culture for vulnerable students, an independent safeguarding review has found.
The report, commissioned by Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy (MVPA), found that shouting, public humiliation, and a lack of support for students with special needs took place.
The Mossbourne Federation expressed its commitment to ensuring the best outcomes for every child attending its schools.
Hackney Council said it would explore how to further strengthen support for its local education offer. The Department of Education said the findings were “deeply concerning.”
MVPA, part of the Hackney-based Mossbourne Federation, is among the top-performing comprehensive schools in England.
But the review, authored by Sir Alan Wood, said this success had been achieved “at too high a cost for some pupils,” particularly those who struggled with what it described as a rigid and inflexible behaviour system.
A City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership report examined 73 accounts relating to MVPA, alongside testimony from parents, pupils, teachers and external professionals.
It concluded that compliance and control were often prioritised above pupil wellbeing and said concerns raised by parents or staff were sometimes dismissed as “vexatious”.
Governors were criticised for failing to scrutinise behavioural practices or examine sanction data.
The report identified several practices of concern, including:
Routine shouting at pupils
“Desking,” where children are placed at hallway desks for minor issues.
Sanctions given to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) for behaviours linked to their conditions
Some groups, including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and certain ethnic groups, are disproportionately sanctioned, and there is no evidence that this was monitored.
Some young people reported long-term effects, including a loss of confidence and distress linked to school experiences.
Sir Alan, a former director for children and young people’s services at Hackney Council, said the findings revealed a “paradox” of “success, but not for all”, noting that while many children thrived at MVPA, others experienced significant harm.
He called for major changes to governance, leadership culture, behaviour tice. Send support and complaint handling.
“Academic excellence that traumatises some pupils is not true excellence,” Sir Alan wrote.
“Discipline through fear is not preparing young people for life as confident, independent adults.”
‘Climate of fear’
Parents described struggling to have concerns acknowledged, with some saying emails and calls went unanswered. The complaints process was viewed by some as a “defensive shield” that protected the school rather than children.
Staff testimonies described a “climate of fear”, pressure to reprimand pupils publicly and a culture in which empathy was discouraged.
One anonymous teacher quoted in the review said, “This term, ‘healthy fear’, was explicitly used as the title of training sessions provided to staff, where we were instructed on methods to ensure that children remained intimidated.”
A former pupil told the review author, “During Year 9 I started to self-harm because the teachers made me feel as though I didn’t deserve to live because of my grades.”
One parent, Andy Wilson, said that while his son attended Mossbourne Community Academy and not MVPA, the issues identified in the review “came as no surprise”.
He described the school as “almost resistant to any engagement”, adding, “It’s like they ringfenced the school rather than protecting the child.”
Mr Wilson said his autistic son was shouted at on his first day and told he was “a disgrace for the length of his hair” and later received “10 detentions in one week” for behaviour linked to his neurodiversity.
Jim Gamble stated that the federation “cannot hide that type of behaviour behind academic excellence.”
Jim Gamble, chair of the City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership, told BBC Radio London the findings exposed serious cultural and leadership failings that could not be explained away by the school’s academic reputation.
He said the review highlighted “practices that shouldn’t be occurring in any school” and warned that “students getting shouted at… that’s not about dignity and respect.”
Mr. Gamble also expressed concerns about disproportionate sanctions, noting that pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds were “about twice as likely to receive a sanction” and adding that governors “should have been aware of this.”
“What we’ve identified here is a small but significant minority of children who are going to a school where the balance is wrong,” he said.
“You can’t hide that type of behaviour behind academic excellence.”
Mr. Gamble said the federation’s senior governing members must demonstrate accountability and “come up with a plan.”
“Because that’s what’s going to count, action, not words,” he said.
MVPA is one of two secondaries run by Mossbourne in Hackney
In a statement, the Mossbourne Federation said it had received the review and was considering it “carefully and in detail” alongside its Members Trust, board and senior leadership team.
It said the report acknowledged “the strong outcomes the schools achieve for pupils alongside high levels of support from parents and staff”.
“In the meantime, we thank our hard-working staff, pupils and parents for their ongoing commitment, focus and support and reiterate our ongoing commitment to enabling students from all backgrounds to thrive and achieve their full potential,” the academy trust added.
The Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review was launched following reports by the BBC and other media outlets into a “toxic culture” at MVPA and the Mossbourne Community Academy.
Last month a separate review by Anne Whyte KC found Mossbourne’s safeguarding policies were broadly compliant but highlighted weaknesses in culture, communication and parental engagement.
It said some families felt their concerns were not heard and recommended improvements in how the federation listens and responds to them.
The Mossbourne Federation said, “We have already recognised the importance of engaging effectively with parents and are working to implement all the recommendations made by Anne Whyte KC.”
Hackney Council said the publication of the review was “a critical moment” in addressing concerns about children’s experiences at the academy and acknowledged the report may cause “upset” for pupils, families and staff.
It said it was considering the findings and how it could further strengthen support for schools to ensure Hackney’s education offer “unequivocally puts the wellbeing of our children and young people first”.
The council said its influence over academy policies was limited but added that statutory freedoms around curriculum and behaviour must still respect Department for Education guidance.
Concerns stretch to Essex
Tuesday’s review came on the heels of a BBC News investigation into the Mossbourne Federation’s administration of two secondary schools it took over in Thurrock, Essex, at the beginning of this year.
It revealed around 150 pupils had been withdrawn amid parents’ claims of harsh discipline, reduced support for children with additional needs and poor communication following the takeover.
Also responding to the MVPA review, Thurrock Council said it supported all of the recommendations and had written to the education secretary urging her to ensure the federation acts on them.
The council said some Thurrock parents had raised concerns similar to those detailed in the report, particularly around discipline, and that some families felt their worries were not being taken seriously.
In their letter, council leaders said the findings suggested children with special educational needs were “suffering most due to the schools’ ‘climate of fear'” and that “there are issues here that need addressing”.
They added that the authority had seen “an increase in parents choosing to take their children out of Mossbourne-run schools”.
The Department for Education said the findings are “serious and deeply concerning”.
It added that school behaviour policies should promote respect and a positive environment, and said it will continue to engage with the trust to ensure changes needed are implemented.
Home Minister Amit Shah asserted that the Congress’s decision to divide Vande Mataram in 1937, as a concession to the Muslim League, initiated appeasement politics that ultimately led to India’s partition. He emphasised the song’s role in cultural nationalism and slammed the opposition for belittling its significance.
NEW DELHI:
Home Minister Amit Shah asserted Tuesday that had Congress not “divided” Vande Mataram, India would not have been partitioned, as its concession to the Muslim League over the song in 1937 started the politics of appeasement, which finally led to the country’s division.
Initiating the discussion in Rajya Sabha on the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, Shah articulated a strong concept of cultural nationalism, which is a foundational principle of the BJP and the broader nationalist movement.
Sangh Parivar said the song by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee affirmed the ancient civilisational glory and tradition of worshipping the motherland that suffered from Islamic invasions and British rule. Shah slammed the opposition for belittling Vande Mataram by stating that the discussion was a way to divert attention from pressing issues and gain traction ahead of elections in Bengal.
Amit Shah stated that the partition was a consequence of the division surrounding Vande Mataram.
Home Minister Amit Shah said it was fitting to pay respect to a song that had stirred patriots for generations and those who were thinking otherwise needed to revisit their understanding. “For us, India has not just been a geographical entity.
We believe it to be a cultural space and treat it as our mother. Lord Ram and Adi Sankara believed in this, and this was what Bankim Babu espoused in Vande Mataram,” Shah said in an apparent refutation of critics of the song’s evocation of goddesses.
The critics pointed out Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati’s marked idolatry and their refusal to sing the song. “We do not fear discussing issues. We do not boycott Parliament. If Parliament is not boycotted and allowed to function, then discussion on all issues will take place.
We don’t have anything to hide,” he said, noting that when the song completed its 100th anniversary, the country was in the grip of emergency. Those singing Vande Mataram were jailed, he said. “Look at the situation of Congress, which used to start its sessions with Vande Mataram. But when the debate started in Lok Sabha, both members of the Gandhi family were missing. The opposition to Vande Mataram is in the blood of Congress leadership, from Jawaharlal Nehru to the present-day Congress brass.”
Shah said in a pointed criticism of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. Shah accused many opposition leaders of not according respect to Vande Mataram and submitted a list to the Rajya Sabha chairman after Congress MP Jairam Ramesh asked him to back his claim. A BJP member will never do this, he added.
He stated that BJP MP Ram Naik’s proposal initiated the singing of Vande Mataram in Parliament. Shah said the song became the chant of the freedom struggle despite British attempts to ban it.
Even though the (British) government tried to ban it, and people were beaten and jailed for chanting Vande Mataram, it touched people’s hearts and spread from Kashmir to Kanyakumari,” he said, recalling Aurobindo, who called it the “mantra” of India’s awakening.
Targeting Congress and Nehru, Shah stated that the song was divided into two parts on its 50th anniversary in 1937. “That is where appeasement politics started. Many like me believe if Vande Mataram was not divided into two for appeasement politics, India would also not have been partitioned,” he added.
President Donald Trump’s ban on issuing new wind energy permits has been ruled “unlawful” by a US court.
In January the president signed an executive order freezing federal approval of offshore and onshore wind projects, halting construction of several projects in the US that were already under way.
Some 17 states and a New York-based clean energy group sued the government, sparked by a stop work order imposed on the Empire Wind 1 project, a vast wind farm planned off the coast of New York aimed at powering 500,000 homes.
On Monday, Massachusetts District Court Judge Patti B. Saris vacated Trump’s order, saying it was “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.”
In her judgement, Judge Saris said federal agencies had failed to “provide a reasoned explanation for the change” and justification for the new policy.
New York Attorney General Letitia James described the court’s ruling as “a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis” in a social media post.
“We won our lawsuit and stopped the Trump administration from blocking an array of new wind energy projects,” she said.
The states, led by New York, sued in May, after the Interior Department ordered Norway’s Equinor to halt construction on its Empire Wind project
While the Trump administration has since allowed work on Empire Wind to resume, the states have argued the wider freeze on permits for other projects is hitting the US economy.
Trump has sought to boost government support for fossil fuels after campaigning for the presidency under the slogan “drill, baby, drill”.
Days after his return to office, Trump said, “We’re not going to do the wind thing,” and called them “big, ugly windmills” that were dangerous to wildlife.
Trump has previously claimed, without evidence, that wind turbines kill whales.
According to its website, the Empire Wind project is expected to take two years to complete and be fully operational by the end of 2027.
Before becoming president, Trump battled – and ultimately failed – to stop the construction of a wind farm off the coast of his golf course in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
