Egypt's parliament has given its
approval to a controversial plan to transfer sovereignty of two largely
uninhabited islands to Saudi Arabia.
The deal, to hand over the
Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, was agreed during a visit to Egypt
by Saudi King Salman in April 2016.
It sparked rare protests in Egypt, with the president accused of "selling" the islands in return for Saudi aid.
The deal has been subject to challenges in court over the past year.
But
parliament has insisted the issue lies in its jurisdiction. Final
approval is now needed from President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi.
Protesters
gathered outside the press union in Cairo as news of parliament's
approval became known. Several people, including some journalists, were
detained.
Mr Sisi said the islands had always belonged to Saudi
Arabia and that the Saudis had asked Egypt to station troops there in
1950 to protect them.
A court ruled in January that the government
had failed to provide evidence that the islands were originally Saudi,
although this ruling was overturned by another court a few months later.
Opponents
accuse Mr Sisi of violating the constitution and handing over the
islands to please Saudi Arabia which has backed him financially since he
led the military's overthrow of his elected Islamist predecessor,
Mohamed Morsi, in 2013.
Why the Red Sea islands matter
Sanafir and Tiran are islands that lie about 4km (2 nautical miles) apart in the Red Sea
Tiran sits at the mouth of the Gulf of
Aqaba, on a strategically important stretch of water called the Strait
of Tiran, used by Israel to access the Red Sea
The islands are uninhabited, apart from Egyptian military personnel and multinational peacekeepers
Egyptian troops have been stationed on the islands since 1950 at the request of Saudi Arabia
Israel captured the islands in 1956 and 1967, subsequently returning them to Egypt both times
Egyptian President Abdul Fattah
al-Sisi was criticised for "selling" Egyptian territory after deciding
in April 2016 to hand the islands to Saudi Arabia.
The
newspaper said the men had travelled to Washington to support the
Turkish president, but it was unclear if they had a formal connection to
his security detail.
Video footage showed men in suits charging past police to kick and punch protesters. Two other men have previously been charged.
Eleven people were hurt in the fracas, nine of whom needed hospital treatment.
The US complained to Turkey about the incident and confirmed that Turkish security guards were involved.
However,
the Turkish Embassy said protesters had provoked Turkish-Americans who
were there to greet the president, and they in turn responded in
self-defence.
After the horrendous fire that swept
Grenfell Tower in west London, it has emerged that notices in the block
instructed people to "stay put". Why is that advice given?
Fire action notices in the tower advised that unless the fire was in or affecting their flat, they should remain in their homes.
Guidance
issued to tenants in a newsletter said: "Our longstanding 'stay put
policy' stays in force unless you are told otherwise. This means that
(unless there is a fire in your flat or in the hallway outside your
flat) you should stay inside your flat."
This is fairly standard advice for people living in purpose-built blocks of flats
In their general advice, the London Fire Brigade says if a fire
breaks out in a block of flats, people living in the block - whose flats
are not affected by the smoke or fire - are "usually safer" staying in
their homes. Elfyn Edwards, a fire safety expert and former
firefighter, says the stay put policy is designed to stop residents in
flats unaffected by fire from unnecessarily evacuating the building and
blocking the stairways. The key factor is how a fire spreads. The
principles of fire safety in the UK are based on a fire being able to
be contained. Usually the way tower blocks are designed means a fire
breaking out in one flat should not spread throughout the rest of a
building. Each flat is designed to be separate and able to contain a fire. Latest updates as fire rips through tower block
But, Mr Edwards said, the Grenfell Tower blaze - because of the
speed at which the fire had engulfed the block - was unprecedented. Geoff
Wilkinson, a fire and building inspector, told the BBC that one of his
"major concerns" would be that smoke seems to have spread into escape
routes. He also said the system of fire alarms in tower blocks was not
exactly as might be assumed. "The way these buildings work isn't
for everyone to escape. With a single staircase, the intention is that
the fire is contained within the individual apartment. "So you
don't have to have everyone escaping all at one point. What will happen
is the fire service will arrive, they'll take command of it, and they
will make a decision as to which floors should evacuate." Fire safety expert Graham Fieldhouse said a "stay put policy" did not mean residents must remain in all situations. "There are questions about the stay put policy and people's understanding of the policy," he said. "If you're affected by fire or smoke, get out." As an example, guidance issued by Harlow council, in Essex, says: "If you are in doubt - get out." Image copyrightPA
The Local Government Association, which represents councils,
reiterates that message in its 2012 guidance, which says a stay put
policy does not imply those who wish to leave a building should be
prevented from doing so if they feel "threatened". One resident
of Grenfell Tower, Michael Paramasivan, said that he had been told in
the case of fire he must stay in his flat - advice he ignored. "If we had stayed in that flat, we would have perished," he said. This is not the first time the advice to stay put has been called into question. In 2009, six people died after a fire broke out in Lakanal House, a tower block in Camberwell, south-east London. But,
in a report following the 2009 tragedy, the chief fire and rescue
adviser, Sir Ken Knight, said the spread of that fire had been unusual. He said a full understanding of how it had spread was needed to make sure the "stay put" principle was still sound. Along with many others, that question may now be asked again.
President Trump described the attack as a "very, very brutal assault".
"We
may have our differences, but we do well in times like these to
remember that everyone who serves in our nation's capital is here
because, above all, they love our country," he added.
He also called Mr Scalise - who was shot in the hip and is in a critical condition after surgery - a "patriot and a fighter".
What we know about suspect
James T Hodgkinson is a 66-year-old man from Belleville, Illinois
His wife told ABC News he moved to Virginia two months ago
His Facebook account shows anti-Republican and anti-Trump rhetoric
He volunteered on the campaign of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
He had a string of criminal convictions, including traffic violations and allegations of violence
The
lawmakers were practising for the annual congressional ballgame that
organisers vowed would go ahead as planned on Thursday at Nationals
Park, home of Major League Baseball team the Washington Nationals.
Alexandria
police said the FBI was taking over the investigation into the
shooting, which began shortly after 07:00 (11:00 GMT) on Wednesday
morning at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park.
Sitting ducks'
As
well as Mr Scalise, two police officers, Krystal Griner and David
Bailey, lobbyist Matt Mika and Zack Barth, a congressional aide for
Texas lawmaker Roger Williams, were injured.
Mr Barth, a former
staffer for two Republican congressmen, was shot in the chest, according
to witness Arizona Senator Jeff Flake.
Mr Flake told reporters he was at bat during the shooting and the victims were "sitting ducks".
Senator
Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, said someone at the baseball field had
used a belt as a tourniquet on Mr Scalise, who is the number three House
Republican.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul told Fox News: "I do believe without the Capitol Hill police it would have been a massacre.
"We had no defence at all. The field was basically a killing field."
He said they were lucky that Mr Scalise was present because he has a security detail owing to his congressional seniority.
Mo
Brooks, an Alabama Republican, told CNN he was on third base during the
baseball game when he saw Mr Scalise, who was on second base, shot.
He said Mr Scalise had a bullet hole in his leg, but was saying: "I'm OK, I'm OK."
Mr Brooks said everyone on the field scattered as 50 to 100 shots were fired.
He said a gunfight had ensued between the shooter and the congressmen's police security detail, who were armed with pistols.
Mr
Brooks, who took refuge behind a batting cage, said the gunman was
armed with a rifle and was "blasting away" from behind the dugout.
Mr
Brooks said congressmen Chuck Fleischmann, of Tennessee, Ron DeSantis,
of Florida, and Jeff Duncan, of South Carolina, were among 15-25 other
lawmakers at the game.
Asked by a CNN host if the attack was deliberate, Mr Brooks replied: "Well, it sure as heck wasn't an accident!
He was going after elected officials, congressmen."
Mr Brooks continued: "The only weapon I had was a baseball bat and that's not the kind of fight you want to engage in."
Ohio congressman Brad Wenstrup, who served in Iraq as a combat surgeon from 2005-06, provided medical care at the scene.
He said the attack had lasted for at least 10 minutes, adding: "He had a lot of ammo."
Alexandria Police Chief Michael Brown said his officers had responded and engaged the shooter within three minutes.
The
last member of Congress to be targeted by a gunman was Democrat
Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head as she met constituents in
Tucson, Arizona, in January 2011. She survived, but six others died in
that incident. Image copyrightReutersImage caption
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was elected to Congress in 2008
Ms Giffords said in a statement: "This shooting is an attack on all who serve and on all who participate in our democracy."
The
top Republican in the House of Representatives, Speaker Paul Ryan, was
applauded on the chamber floor as he said: "We are united... an attack
on one of us is an attack on all of us." BBC NEWS
UN war crimes investigators say
US-led coalition air strikes on Islamic State militants in the Syrian
city of Raqqa are causing "staggering loss of life".
Hundreds of
civilians are reported to have been killed since March, as coalition
warplanes support an offensive by a Kurdish-led alliance.
In the past week, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters have pushed into the west, east and north of Raqqa.
The battle for the city has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes.
The coalition has said the capture of Raqqa will deliver a
"decisive blow" to the caliphate proclaimed by IS in June 2014, months
after it took control or the city.
Up to 4,000 militants are believed to be holed up inside Raqqa, including foreign fighters and various senior figures.
It
is unclear how many civilians are trapped there with them, but UN
officials estimated that there are between 50,000 and 100,000.
In an address to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday, the
chairman of the independent commission of inquiry for Syria noted that
IS had been losing territory at a rapid pace in the north and centre of
the country over the past few months.
If successful, Paolo
Pinheiro said, the SDF offensive on Raqqa "could liberate the city's
civilian population from the group's oppressive clutches, including
Yazidi women and girls, whom the group has kept sexually enslaved for
almost three years as part of an ongoing and unaddressed genocide".
But he added that the offensive must not be "undertaken at the
expense of civilians who unwillingly find themselves living in areas
where [IS] is present".
"We note in particular that the
intensification of air strikes, which have paved the ground for an SDF
advance in Raqqa, has resulted not only in staggering loss of civilian
life, but has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes and
becoming internally displaced."
The UK-based monitoring group Airwars estimates that more than 600 civilians were killed in more than 150 coalition or SDF attacks between March and May.
Air and artillery strikes killed dozens more in the first eight days of June, it says.
The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs warned on Thursday that the assault was intensifying an "already desperate" situation in Raqqa.
Air
strikes, shelling and clashes on the ground were killing and injuring
civilians, and damaging key infrastructure, it said. There were also
reports of increased shortages of essential commodities such as food,
medicine and fuel, it added.
Separately, Human Rights Watch warned
that the coalition's use of artillery-delivered white phosphorus in
Raqqa and in the last remaining IS-held parts of the northern Iraqi city
of Mosul was endangering civilians. White phosphorus can be used
for several purposes on the battlefield - as a smoke screen, for
signalling and marking, and as an incendiary weapon. However,
international law prohibits its use in civilian areas because of its
indiscriminate effects. On contact, it can burn people, thermally and
chemically, down to the bone. "No matter how white phosphorus is
used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm," warned
Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch.
The head of Chinese insurance and financial giant Anbang is reported to have been detained by the authorities.
The company, one of the country's richest and most powerful, said Wu Xiaohui was stepping aside as chairman.
It gave few details but said he was no longer able to fulfil his duties for "personal reasons".
Chinese business magazine Caijing had reported that Mr Wu was detained by authorities last week, but later deleted its article.
An
official source told the BBC that Mr Wu had been taken away from the
Anbang Office Building on 8 June by police who arrived in two cars.
It is not clear where Mr Wu is now.
If
Mr Wu's detention is confirmed by the authorities, he would be the
highest-profile target of the government's attempt to re-establish state
control of the financial industry, and target corruption.
1.95bn Acquisition of New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel
Reuters
The company, which manages some 1.65tn yuan (£190bn; $242bn) worth of
assets, said in a statement that the chairman's duties would be managed
by other senior executives.
Anbang did not comment on the report by Caijing that he had been detained.
Earlier, Anbang had denied a report by the Financial Times that Mr Wu had been stopped from travelling abroad.
Is Anbang what it seems? Analysis by Celia Hatton, BBC News
In
the past few years, high-level officials have often been detained for
corruption in China. Found guilty of taking bribes, they're handed
lengthy prison sentences and ushered out of public view.
The Wu Xiaohui case is very different.
Mr
Wu masterminded the explosive rise of his company in just over a decade
by selling relatively risky investment products - not traditional
insurance policies. Still smarting about the collapse of Shanghai's
stock market in 2012, Chinese regulators had warned about Anbang's
"wealth management products".
Another respected magazine, Caixin, published unusually frank exposes on Anbang in April. Like the New York Times
before it, Caixin probed Anbang's murky ownership structure and whether
it had enough money in the bank to carry out large overseas
acquisitions.
The articles addressed some of the greatest
mysteries swirling around China: who really owns Anbang and who made way
for its almost impossible rise from a tiny car insurance company to a
global behemoth?
If Wu Xiaohui and Anbang aren't what they seem,
the entire Chinese economy, including many ordinary people with Anbang
products, could be in for a fall.
The possible deal had raised media speculation over a potential conflict of interest and was called off by "mutual agreement" without any reasons given.
Wu
Xiaohui had long been considered one of the most politically connected
men in China, having married the granddaughter of former leader Deng
Xiaoping.
His company has in recent years been among the biggest
players of Chinese firms pursuing high-profile overseas acquisitions and
investments.
In 2016, Anbang paid private equity firm Blackstone
$6.5bn for the ownership of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, a portfolio
of upmarket hotels and resorts.
That purchase added 16 luxury
properties across the US to Anbang's holdings, including the
Ritz-Carlton Half Moon Bay, and the Four Seasons hotels in Silicon
Valley and Washington.
It was meant to be an interview to promote a book.
But Mia Freedman's podcast chat with feminist author Roxane Gay has been overshadowed by the words used to trail it online.
Ms
Freedman wrote about wondering whether Ms Gay would "fit in to the
office lift" and searching for a chair "sturdy enough to hold her
weight".
Ms Gay called the words "cruel and humiliating". Ms Freedman apologised, saying she was "beyond mortified".
Ms
Gay's book Hunger recounts her life as a "woman of size", as she puts
it - she is 6ft 3in (1.91m) tall and, at her heaviest, weighed 41 stone
(262kg).
Subtitled A Memoir of (My) Body, it tells how the author
began overeating after suffering serious sexual violence as a child, and
how her size makes the world more difficult to navigate - from deciding
whether to book one or two airplane seats to dealing with the reactions
of other people.
"Fat bodies tend to be public property", she writes, saying strangers are quick to offer her advice on losing weight.
"People
are quick to offer statistics and information about the dangers of
obesity, as if you are not only fat but incredibly stupid, unaware, and
delusional about your body and a world that is vigorously inhospitable
to that body."
While promoting the book in Australia, Ms Gay spoke to Ms Freedman for her women's website Mamamia.
"A
lot of planning has to go in to a visit from best-selling author,
college professor and writer Roxane Gray," the podcast description
started.
"Will she fit into the office lift? How many steps will she have to take to get to the interview?"
It continued: "None of this is disclosed with a mean spirit, it's part of what Roxane writes about in her new book Hunger."
Image copyright@courtney_ro
But in response, Ms Gay tweeted that she was "appalled", that the
words were "cruel and humiliating", the situation was "disgusting and
shameful".
"I can walk a f***ing mile," she wrote.
Later, she wrote about her reaction to media attention being wrested away from the launch of the book.
The podcast description was changed online and Ms Freedman published a long statement apologising and saying the experience had been an "extraordinarily searing lesson". "This
is not my story to tell and I should not have included it in the intro
to the podcast or the podcast description. It was disrespectful and it
upset her and for that I am deeply, deeply sorry. Unconditionally sorry. "I
am beyond mortified, horrified and ashamed that I could have, in any
way contributed to Roxane Gay feeling anything other than fierce,
brilliant and beautiful." The fallout has been covered in several media outlets around the world, and the Sydney Morning Herald published a piece saying it might harm Mamamia's plans to expand its readership in the US.
