MagazinAisle

Author: rb809rb

  • US trial begins for Rwandan-American accused of role in genocide

    US trial begins for Rwandan-American accused of role in genocide

    Eric Nshimiye, an American citizen, says the evidence against him consists of unreliable eye witnesses.

    Boston, Massachusetts, United States – A United States federal court in Boston has begun hearing the case of a Rwandan-American accused of covering up his role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

    Prosecutors say Eric Nshimiye, a 55-year-old father of four and a US citizen, took part in a nationwide outbreak of genocidal violence against ethnic minority Tutsis by majority Hutu extremists in April 1994. More than 800,000 people were killed over about 100 days, in what has been called a genocide by the United Nations.

    Recommended Stories

    list of 3 itemsend of list

    Investigators from the US Department of Homeland Security arrested Nshimiye at his home in Ohio in 2024, alleging he had lied to them in an interview about his time in Rwanda during the genocide. They also allege he committed perjury in a previous trial in 2019 in Boston when he testified on behalf of a friend who was also accused of perpetrating the genocide. Prosecutors say Nshimiye, a medical student at the time of the genocide in the town of Butare, himself took part in the killing and rape of Tutsis.

    Hutus who took part in the violence “heeded calls by the government to terminate their neighbours,” Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Looney told the court on Tuesday, including Nshimiye in the group.

    “He himself attacked Tutsis, and handed Tutsis over to be killed and raped,” Looney said.

    During his 2019 testimony, Nshimiye denied being part of the genocide, and said he was not part of the pro-Hutu National Revolutionary Movement for Development and the Interahamwe, the paramilitary group blamed for most of the killings during the genocide.

    Nshimiye faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for those denials. If convicted, the Trump administration could try to revoke Nshimiye’s citizenship.

    Nshimiye, who is an ethnic Hutu, says he had gone to the capital, Kigali, on holiday before violence broke out. He says he never made it back to Butare because of the chaos engulfing the country in April 1994, and instead left the country as a refugee, eventually coming to the US and becoming a citizen in 2009.

    At the opening of his case on Tuesday, Nshimiye, dressed in a dark blue suit, was calm and occasionally turned to smile at family and friends who came to support him. Since his arrest, authorities have kept Nshimiye without bail in a Boston-area federal jail.

    Prosecutors plan to put more than a dozen witnesses on the stand, most flown in from Rwanda, who say they recall seeing Nshimiye participate in pro-Hutu political events before the genocide, and some who say they later saw him participate in genocidal violence in Butare.

    His family says the events of 1994 are more complex than the simple narrative of Hutus killing Tutsis. Simply being an ethnic Hutu, Epa Bizimana, Nshimiye’s nephew, told Al Jazeera, should not be enough to convince a jury someone took part in the genocide.

    “The jury is going to learn some things for the first time; Americans are going to learn something for the first time,” said Bizimana, who was 10 years old when he fled Rwanda with his family in 1994.

    Defence lawyers told the court on Tuesday that Nshimiye was not part of the Hutus who participated in the genocide. They say the entire case against him is built on the accounts of eyewitnesses, some of whom were only able to identify him after repeatedly being shown his photo, and some of whom have a history of giving different testimony in trials of alleged genocidaires over the years.

    Kurt Kerns, one of the defence attorneys, told the court that the prosecution’s case was based on evidence “that only reared its ugly head after Eric came to testify as a character witness, and 25 years after the genocide.”

    Kerns said Nshimiye had never been implicated in domestic and international tribunals after the genocide, including the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as well as an informal transitional justice system inside Rwanda, called gacaca, which tried more than a million people for their role in the atrocity.

  • Ex-gang leader gets 40 years to life for rapper Tupac Shakur’s 1996 murder

    Ex-gang leader gets 40 years to life for rapper Tupac Shakur’s 1996 murder

    By Reuters and The Associated Press

    Published On 13 Oct 2026

    A former gang leader accused of masterminding the 1996 drive-by shooting of hip-hop star Tupac Shakur has been sentenced to 40 years to life in prison.

    Tuesday’s sentencing capped a 30-year-long cold case that rattled the golden era of rap music in the United States.

    Recommended Stories

    list of 3 itemsend of list

    In August, Duane “Keffe D” Davis, a former leader of the South Side Compton Crips, had been found guilty of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon.

    Davis, 63, is the sole person charged in the death of Shakur, who died at the peak of his fame at age 25.

    Judge Carli Kierny announced Davis’s sentence at a hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada, where she chided him for the murder.

    “You don’t get to take a man from his family, you don’t get to take his very life, his whole future from him and just walk away from it, especially when that man is Tupac Shakur,” Kierny said. “The world never forgot about him and his death, and neither did Las Vegas.”

    During the hearing, prosecutor Marc DiGiacomo said that whatever sentence the court imposes, Davis is “guaranteed to die” behind bars.

    For nearly three decades, Shakur’s death remained one of the music industry’s most notorious unsolved mysteries, prompting endless debate over who did it and why.

    Davis had long been a suspect, but investigators lacked evidence to pursue an indictment.

    The investigative deadlock shattered after Davis publicly boasted about his involvement in media interviews. He also recounted his role in the murder in his 2019 memoir, Compton Street Legend.

    Previously, Davis entered into a 2008 proffer agreement with federal law enforcement officers, granting him limited immunity for statements he made privately to investigators.

    But by repeating his statements outside his meetings with investigators, prosecutors said Davis had effectively voided the agreement’s protections.

    DiGiacomo said that Davis was trying to profit from a killing that he committed, and for that, he deserves the maximum possible sentence.

    Shakur had been in Las Vegas for a Mike Tyson heavyweight fight on the night of September 7, 1996, when he was shot.

    Investigators said the shooting took place roughly two hours after a confrontation between Davis’s nephew, Orlando Anderson, and Shakur’s entourage.

    In his memoir, Davis accused Shakur and his friends of assaulting his nephew. He explained he then sought to retaliate, and he admitted to handing the murder weapon to two alleged accomplices, seated in the backseat of a white Cadillac, who then fired the fatal shots.

    Shakur had been in the passenger seat of a black BMW, stopped at a red light, when his vehicle came under fire. He died six days later.

    Davis is the only person who was in the Cadillac that evening who is still alive.

    Members of Shakur’s family spoke at the sentencing, including his siblings Maurice “Mopreme” Shakur and Sekyiwa “Set” Shakur.

    “This man’s life mattered,” Sekyiwa Shakur told the court, while her brother called the murder “devastating, heartbreaking and sad”.

    Following the verdict, Chief Deputy District Attorney Binu Palal described the Shakur family as having to endure years of Davis “bragging about killing someone they loved”.

    “They loved that man. And the arrogance that Mr Davis had in expressing his joy in killing that man ultimately was his undoing,” Palal said.

    The ex-gang leader briefly addressed the court on Tuesday, asking the judge to order the return of property seized from his residence, including personal photographs.

    When the judge asked if he wished to make any additional statements, Davis declined, stating, “No, I’m good.” He added that he would “appeal this case for sure”.

  • Judge Rules Trump Administration Can’t Resume Ban On CNN, MS NOW & Politico From White House Grounds

    Judge Rules Trump Administration Can’t Resume Ban On CNN, MS NOW & Politico From White House Grounds

    UPDATED, with additional comment: A federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, granting the three outlets a preliminary injunction that ensures access for the foreseeable future.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion that the news outlets “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.”

    Kelly did caution that “no one should interpret the court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.” But when it came to the blanket ban on the three outlets, the judge was unpersuaded by the government’s justifications.

    Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from access to White House grounds, complaining that they were “‘reporting’ fake news.”. A day later, their reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated.

    The news outlets sued, and Kelly issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s restriction on the outlets, something that forced the White House to restore the hard passes to dozens of reporters and other staffers. That TRO expired on Tuesday; the preliminary injunction means that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s ban in the long term, either until a trial or an appeal. The news outlets warned that the White House was likely to reimpose the ban absent further court intervention.

    In defending the ban, the government cited national security reasons, although DOJ attorneys also argued that the news organizations did not meet “minimum requirements of professionalism.” While the DOJ pointed to stories published or aired that had to do with national security, they also cited as an example an MS NOW report that Trump aides considered an option of adding the president’s name to Ford’s Theatre. Trump later denied it.

    In his 26-page opinion, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedents in that reporters had a right to due process before their hard pass is revoked.

    “To put it mildly, [the news outlets] likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” the judge wrote.

    The judge noted that some of the stories flagged by the White House were published earlier this year and written by reporters who later had their hard passes renewed. Then came Trump’s ban, and they were revoked. They included a CNN report from January 2026 on the top secret bunker being built beneath the East Wing, and an MS NOW story that quoted an anonymous White House official who said the president underestimated Iran’s willingness to resume the war.

    The White House press office sent letters to the news organizations on September 22, informing them of the reasons and their ability to contest the action, but that was four days after the ban was implemented.

    The judge also sided with the news outlets’ in their claims that Trump was engaging in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

    “President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before. After explaining that he excluded Plaintiffs from the White House because they ‘purposely write negative news . . . to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,’ President Trump remarked that he is prepared to take ‘the ban . . . as far as you can,’ but that he would “love it” if they “could straighten themselves out.”

    The judge added, “The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue. And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

    He also dismissed the government’s national security argument. He noted that there was “no evidence in the record” that he made the decision to revoke the passes for those reasons “from the get go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.”

    The judge explained that because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House press area is a “non public forum,” the government cannot limit access based on someone’s viewpoint.

    The judge wrote that “it is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased—in other words, it was ‘an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view.’”

    The judge also ruled that the news outlets should put up a nominal bond of $1.00 as the case moves forward.

    Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news outlets, said in a statement, “When the president issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”

    Boutrous added, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

  • Did DHS waive New Mexico water laws to access wells for border wall construction?

    Did DHS waive New Mexico water laws to access wells for border wall construction?

    Claim:

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security waived New Mexico water laws in an effort for the federal government to keep access to water wells for border wall construction, despite officials calling it “unconstitutional” amid lawsuits from the state.

    Rating:

    True

    Rumors that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security allegedly illegally used water from New Mexico in order to aid in construction of its border wall circulated in October. 

    Specifically, people claimed that DHS had issued a waiver to remove the state’s protections and ownership of the water wells despite ongoing disputes with land owners and lawsuits against the federal government’s actions regarding its construction plans. 

    The claim was true. 

    On Oct. 2, the Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin issued a directive — available to read on the Federal Register — that it was “necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of New Mexico.”

    Included in the waiver was the entirety of the New Mexico Water Code. 

    The directive further described the El Paso Sector, a Customs and Border Protection jurisdiction that includes all of New Mexico, as an “area of high illegal entry” to justify the move.

    A spokesperson for CBP, which is part of DHS, told Snopes via email the agency was “coordinating with the State of New Mexico and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a broader groundwater management strategy” and stressed the importance of how “water is required for road construction, concrete production, and dust suppression associated with border wall construction.”

    They wrote that “CBP recently instructed the barrier construction contractor to pause on the installation of any new groundwater wells in collaboration with the State of New Mexico and as an initial step in minimizing or avoiding impacts to groundwater water resources,” adding they were committed to working with local landowners. 

    A spokesperson for New Mexico’s Office of the State Engineer told Snopes via email:

    We have informed the CBP that all water used for the project must come from permitted sources, and we have instructed them in how to do that. To date, they have been unwilling to do so, and they continue pumping water from illegal wells. Therefore, while a pause in drilling new wells is a good first step, more must be done to ensure that New Mexicans’ water supply is not threatened by this project.

    The agenda for a meeting of New Mexico’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee on Oct. 6 showed that Nathaniel Chakeres, general counsel at the New Mexico’s Office of the State Engineer, made a presentation regarding the illegal drilling and resulting waiver, which he called “unconstitutional.”

    Searchlight New Mexico, an investigative journalism outlet, quoted Chakeres as telling the committee that “the water of New Mexico is owned by the public for appropriation by private parties. That’s in our constitution, and the federal government accepted that constitution when we became a state.” Snopes attempted to locate video of the committee meeting but was unable to. 

    The committee’s website appeared to host the minutes from its meetings for public review, but none were available for the meeting in question as of this writing. 

    In Chakeres’ presentation, as one local report pointed out, he “shared an image of an open well casing that sat roughly six inches above pooled surface water,” which meant “the next rain storm could send oil, gas or construction chemicals into the groundwater.” 

    That report, by Source New Mexico, quoted Chakeres as saying, “It’s appalling. We were shocked when we came out and saw this. No New Mexico drillers drill wells like this.”

    New Mexico’s battle for water at the border

    The battle between the state and the federal government’s attempts at border wall construction first made headlines in June when the government attempted to seize land belonging to a Roman Catholic diocese in New Mexico after the church refused to agree to an acquisition, leading to a lawsuit. 

    In July, area farmers met to discuss the issue of federal drilling on the border, voicing their concerns over a dwindling water supply and “unmonitored tapping of border aquifers.”  

    In August, the Office of the State Engineer threatened to revoke licenses of the companies contracted by the Trump administration for the border wall project. 

    One local news report wrote the officials had found multiple “unauthorized” wells in protected water basins, along with possible safety violations, with one that had the “imminent risk of groundwater contamination.”

    CBP reportedly agreed to stop drilling following the voicing of these concerns, however, by the end of August, the state sued the federal government and the border contractors, citing that no formal effort was made to cease the drilling. The ongoing legal struggles led to the introduction of the waiver on Oct. 2. 

    When reached for comment, DHS also provided a statement from CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott that was first released in August, discussing an unrelated CBP project in southern Arizona in which the department is cutting through tribal land for construction. The department has not yet responded to a follow-up about what, if anything, the statement about the Arizona project has to do with the situation in New Mexico.

  • Man raked in £350,000 secretly ‘working five full time work from home jobs’

    Man raked in £350,000 secretly ‘working five full time work from home jobs’

    A civil servant taking home five salaries was contracted to work more hours that exist in a week, according to prosecutors.

    Kashim Chowdhury, from Whitechapel, east London, has been accused of lying about his employment status by pretending to work 183 hours a week for five jobs.

    There are 186 hours in a week, making this physically impossible.

    Jurors at Southwark Crown Court were told that the 55-year-old earned almost £350,000 from eight employers between February 2020 and September 2023.

    Prosecutor Lucy Organ recalled a ‘laughable’ incident in May 2023 when Chowdhury allegedly put on white makeup during a video call to pretend that he was ill.

    His UKHSA manager Aleesha Adams had arranged a video call to discuss his recent sick leave, as the court heard that Chowdhury had told employers he had to work from home to care for his ‘unwell’ mother.

    Chowdhury appeared on camera ‘coughing and blowing his nose’, the court heard, while Adams said that his face appeared white, as his neck was a different colour.

    Kashim Chowdhury denies nine counts of fraud (PA)

    Kashim Chowdhury denies nine counts of fraud (PA)

    “There could be no doubt about it, the defendant had applied makeup to his face for this Teams meeting to try and pretend to his line manager that he was unwell,” she said.

    “This almost laughable incident demonstrates, we say, quite how far the defendant was willing to go in his deceit.”

    Chowdhury started working at Tower Hamlets Council in February 2020, followed by Defra in April 2021.

    During 2022, he also worked for East London NHS Trust for four months. After leaving the council, he reportedly took further positions at the Department of Health and Social Care, UK Health Security Agency, Department for Business and Trade, Food Standards Agency and Home Office.

    By May 2023, he allegedly held five full-time jobs simultaneously, totalling 183 contracted hours weekly.

    The defendant denies nine counts of fraud.

    Chowdhury has been accused of earning £350,000 from eight employers (PA)

    Chowdhury has been accused of earning £350,000 from eight employers (PA)

    Organ said that between March 2020 and September 2023, Chowdhury had over £300,000 in credits into his three bank accounts and nearly £250,000 in debits.

    “He also made, the prosecution say, continuing implied false representations by having a full-time job and not revealing to his employers that he had other full-time employment,” she added.

    “In fact members of the jury, you will hear evidence that at times he positively lied about his employment history and having other full-time jobs.

    “He concealed that he had multiple simultaneous employments from his employers. As a result, he was paid for multiple full-time jobs at the same time.

    “We say those jobs were obtained by false representation – fraud – and made a financial gain for himself from this fraud.”

  • Ilhan Omar: 18 rumors we’ve examined

    Ilhan Omar: 18 rumors we’ve examined

    Was Ilhan Omar’s suspected attacker on her ‘payroll,’ as CBS allegedly reported? Don’t be fooled

    Feb. 1, 2026


    The claim originated from a social media account known to concoct outright false or misleading h …

    Read More

  • Making a Murderer lawyer Kathleen Zellner criticised over ‘case is solved’ post

    Making a Murderer lawyer Kathleen Zellner criticised over ‘case is solved’ post

    Kathleen Zellner has been slammed over a social media post in which she declared that ‘the case is solved’, leaving her followers furious.

    Zellner is known for her association with the Netflix series Making a Murderer, which follows the case of Steven Avery.

    Avery was convicted of murder in 2007, after having previously been wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985, for which he has since been exonerated.

    The Netflix docuseries Making a Murderer followed Avery’s story since his 2007 conviction, and Zellner has taken him on as a client.

    Zellner took to social media, sharing an article published by The Guardian which was reporting on a development on an entirely separate case about a Chicago police officer who was identified as the killer of an eight-year-old girl in a murder which happened some 65 years ago.

    Sharing the reporting on the new development, she wrote: “Finally the case is solved!!”

    However, many of her followers were left frustrated, as they had read the caption of the post and assumed at first that it was referring to Avery, when in fact it was referring to a different case entirely.

    They took to the comment section below the post to share their frustration.

    Zellner's followers said they believed the post to be about the show (Monica Schipper/Getty Images for the 2015 Tribeca Film Festival)

    Zellner’s followers said they believed the post to be about the show (Monica Schipper/Getty Images for the 2015 Tribeca Film Festival)

    “Expected better than clickbait from you,” wrote one. “Really thought it was about Steven Avery.”

    Another drew attention to the same problem, writing: “Kathleen, this is great news for the guy involved in the story you shared but how does that link to Steven Avery??

    “I almost sent this to my ex, because we watched it together!!! Christ on a bike!!”

    Meanwhile a third wrote simply: “Doesnt [sic] have anything to do with Steven….”

    The case in question was the murder of eight-year-old Gloria Kowalewicz in 1960, a case which had gone cold for decades.

    However, on Monday Chicago police announced that they have now used newly-found DNA evidence, which has implicated a former detective with Chicago Police to the crime.

    Thomas McInerney was identified as Gloria’s killer, more than 20 years after he himself had died, and long after he had retired from the Chicago Police Department.

    Thomas McInerney was connected to the killing in 1960 (Chicago Police Department)

    Thomas McInerney was connected to the killing in 1960 (Chicago Police Department)

    “McInerney should have never worn the CPD star,” the statement said, “and it is devastating to accept that he was never identified and held accountable while he was alive.”

    Depite this, the statement still shared a hope that the breakthrough would bring ‘measure of closure to all who knew Gloria and her story’.

    The DNA evidence in question was obtained from a website that allows people to explore their genetic ancestry.

    On 12 November 1960 Gloria had been walking from her home to a nearby church where she would attend mass, but she would never make it to church.

    While she was on her way, Gloria was abducted and shot, with her body being discovered in a ditch located on an area of preserved forest south-west of Chicago.

    McInerney had joined the Chicago Police in 1959, and had been about to turn 25 when Gloria was killed.

    A statement from the FBI has also said that it will investigate whether McInerney’s DNA is a match to any other cold cases.

  • Ben Frow Stepping Down as Chief Content Officer of 5, Skydance’s U.K. Network, After 14 Years

    Ben Frow Stepping Down as Chief Content Officer of 5, Skydance’s U.K. Network, After 14 Years

    Ben Frow, chief content officer of 5 (formerly Channel 5) is stepping down next year.

    The news was shared in an internal memo from Reemah Sakaan, president of the Skydance-owned U.K. network. He has been with the company for 14 years.

    “I have always said that this was the best job in the world, and I’ve absolutely loved my time at 5,” Frow was quoted in the memo. “But after 14 years where I’ve achieved everything I wanted to and more, it seems like the right time to hand over and give someone else a go. This isn’t a good bye just yet and I’ll be around to support Reemah and the team with a smooth transition.”

    Frow will step down from his day-to-day role next summer and leave the company at the end of 2027. Sakaan’s memo indicated the network intends to find a new creative leader to step into Frow’s shoes.
    In her memo, Sakaan praised the exec’s “exceptional creative skills, obsession with our audience and fiery competitive spirit.”

    Sakaan noted that Frow has overseen shows including “Michael Palin in…,” “The Yorkshire Vet,” “Cruising With Jane McDonald,” “Murder Suspect No. 1,” “Cause of Death,” “GPs Behind Closed Door,” “Rich House, Poor House,” “Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards,” “All Creatures Great and Small,” “Ellis,” “Good Ship Murder” and “Play for Today.”

    Rumors of Frow’s impending departure had been bubbling in the industry in some months. The news comes as 5 posted a £24.5 million ($32 million) drop in profits year-on-year.

    The company’s latest financial report, published last month, states that owners Skydance — after completing its merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. — have “set out ambitious plans to create a next-generation global media and technology company” and remain “committed to building on 5’s success.”

  • New update on £829 payment for millions of drivers who bought car finance between 2007 and 2024

    New update on £829 payment for millions of drivers who bought car finance between 2007 and 2024

    Millions of motorists are in line for an average payout of £829 due to car finance compensation but they’ll have to wait for challenges against it to be heard, which will come in February.

    The compensation scheme is worth £9.1 billion and there are thought to be around 12.1 million car finance agreements affected, but any possible payout will be beyond the legal challenge period set for between 16 and 26 February.

    The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) plans to compensate drivers who were mis-sold car finance between 2007 and 2024, but the scheme is on hold while Volkswagen Financial Services, Mercedes Benz Financial Services, and Credit Agricole Auto Finance challenge it.

    According to the FCA lenders have to keep preparing to pay compensation out and keep progressing people’s complaints, but they also warned ‘there may be no motor finance compensation scheme and no complaint handling pause’.

    That’s in the event that the compensation scheme is quashed in court.

    Between 2007 and 2024 over 12 million car finance deals were struck that are now eligible for compensation (Anna Barclay/Getty Images)

    Between 2007 and 2024 over 12 million car finance deals were struck that are now eligible for compensation (Anna Barclay/Getty Images)

    As for what this is all about, the FCA has accused car finance firms of having ‘broken the law by failing to disclose important information to customers’.

    When people bought cars on finance there was often something called a Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA) which meant that dealerships got a commission from the lender based on the interest rate charged.

    Costs were passed onto the customer which meant that in millions of cases the interest on their car finance was increased to pay the dealer or get a higher commission.

    It means that in around 12.1 million car finance deals in the UK someone was paying more than they should and they often weren’t told about a DCA being part of their car finance costs.

    Because of exclusive agreements between dealerships and lenders it means customers may not have been given accurate information about the best deal available.

    Challenges won't be heard until February, so if you're waiting for compensation you'll have to wait a bit longer (Anna Barclay/Getty Images)

    Challenges won’t be heard until February, so if you’re waiting for compensation you’ll have to wait a bit longer (Anna Barclay/Getty Images)

    Regulators had been hoping that this would get handled in December but with the delay it’s going to be the new year at the earliest when people can expect to get any compensation.

    Remember that the £829 payout is an average, the amount people will get depends on the cars they bought and how much they were paying for them.

    If you wanted to know whether you were eligible, if you bought a motor vehicle on finance between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 with a Personal Contract Purchases (PCP) & Hire Purchase (HP) then you might be eligible.

    In which case your first port of call ought to be your lender to make a complaint, after which you should hear within three months whether or not you’re eligible for compensation.

    After that you have a month to accept the compensation amount or challenge it.

  • AI Researchers Are Smoking Cigarettes to Prove AI Will Cure Cancer, Says Palantir Exec

    AI Researchers Are Smoking Cigarettes to Prove AI Will Cure Cancer, Says Palantir Exec

    In brief

    • Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar claimed on CBS that many AI researchers have started smoking to show how much they believe in AI.
    • Sankar provide any data, and used the segment to attack effective altruism as a doomsday cult.
    • The CDC says smoking causes about one in three U.S. cancer deaths, and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei says only actually curing cancer will earn public trust in AI.

    Nothing says “I trust the future of medicine” quite like lighting a Marlboro and waiting for the chatbot to fix your lungs. That is the habit Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says is spreading among AI researchers, who have supposedly started smoking cigarettes to prove how confident they are that AI will cure cancer.

    “So many AI researchers have started smoking as a way of signaling to other researchers how much they believe in AI,” Sankar said in an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I believe so much in AI that it’s going to cure cancer. So I’m showing you my chips are all in.”

    Myriad: Which company will have the best AI model? Click to make your prediction.
    Myriad: Which company will have the best AI model? Click to make your prediction.

    He did not name a single researcher, cite a survey, or explain how he knows. The remark landed as an aside while host Margaret Brennan pressed him on why he was so focused on the topic.

    He pointed to FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried as the effective altruist most Americans know, calling the movement a “millenarian doomsday cult.” He also invoked Pascal’s idea of a god-shaped hole in every human heart, which he suggested some of these researchers are filling with a machine god called AGI.

    The medical record is less enthusiastic than the thesis. The CDC says smoking causes roughly one in three cancer deaths in the United States, and cigarette smoke contains at least 69 chemicals known to cause cancer.

    Smokers face about 25 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers, according to the agency. Quitting lowers the risk of 12 types of cancer, and the added lung cancer risk drops by half 10 to 15 years after stopping.

    The cancer pitch is not new in this industry. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in August that promising AI will cure cancer has become “more a cliche than it is inspiring,” and that only actually curing it would earn the public’s trust.

    That trust is thin. In the CBS poll Brennan cited, 50% of Americans said AI will create more problems than it solves, 29% said it will solve more than it creates, and 21% were unsure.

    About 45% said they want the government to restrict AI’s use and development. Smoking to show faith in the technology does not obviously help that number, but it does help AI bros bond with each other. “When you’re smoking, you’re networking by accident,” Revamp AI cofounder Stephen Campbell told Business Insider last month.

    The IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva recently warned that AI could hit 40% of jobs, and insiders expect a major AI incident within a year. Indirectly causing a lung cancer outbreak was probably not on their bingo card.

    Palantir sells data-analysis software to governments and militaries. Most of its business relies on AI.

    Daily Debrief Newsletter

    Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.