HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — The sister of a woman who was shot four times while holding her 1-year-old son is speaking out after her death.
Since police haven’t identified the victim, we’re not naming the sister, but she said, “She was a really great mother. She died protecting her son, because he was on her hip when she fell. She fell on top of him and he continued to shoot.”
Police say this was a domestic violence incident that happened outside the victim’s Westchase-area apartment Thursday morning.
Authorities said the incident started as a domestic dispute. When officials arrived, the woman was in critical condition. Emergency personnel gave administered CPR and were able to identify a pulse, but she died at the hospital.
According to police, a bullet struck the 1-year-old boy’s ankle. He was also transported to Memorial Hermann, where he is stable.
“He’s doing really well. He was shot in the leg, (but) the bullet went in and out,” said the victim’s sister.
While police have not identified the suspect, they say he is the father of the child. Officials said the man was out of jail on seven felony bonds and had an ankle monitor. However, it’s unclear if he was wearing the device at the time of the shooting.
Police were looking for him Thursday afternoon.
“He’s a felon, a menace to society. He’s a person that should not have been walking free,” the sister said.
Court documents show the suspect posted bond on charges, including evading arrest, felon in possession of a weapon, assault bodily injury, and assault of a family member. ABC13 is waiting to hear back from the judge who granted the bond to find out why he would be given yet another bond.
The victim’s sister blames the system, saying, “They failed to protect her. Because she would still be here (Thursday) if he wouldn’t have kept getting out on bond.”
“We wonder what could we have done to prevent this. Once again, we don’t want to put any fault anywhere, however, with the suspect being out on bond for seven major felonies, this could have been prevented,” said HPD Asst. Chief Patricia Cantu.
Now, the victim’s family is hoping for justice, soon.
“Keep us in your prayers… just pray for my nephew,” says the woman.
GET HELP: If you need help getting out of a domestic violence situation, call the Houston Area Women’s Center 24/7 hotline at 713-528-2121 or call AVDA at 713-224-9911. You can also click here to chat with an advocate online. If you are deaf or hard of hearing and need help, call 713-528-3625.
Some of the airlines’ new domestic routes include Birmingham to Newquay, which is less than 200 miles, for £22.99.
EasyJet decided to create more domestic routes to “give Brits more options to reconnect or take a break this summer”.
However, this move has been criticised by green campaigners as it is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenpeace UK said: “Companies like easyJet claim to take sustainability seriously, but their announcement of 12 new domestic routes shows they will not prioritise our planet’s health over their profits until they are forced to do so by law.
“Domestic flights have long been a symbol of how our economic system incentivises our own destruction. These new UK routes show easyJet continues to but profits over the planet,” it continued.
EasyJet has put more than 60,000 additional seats on sale across routes from Belfast to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasglow.
Some of the airlines’ new domestic routes include Birmingham to Newquay, which is less than 200 miles, for £22.99.
Most of them are viable by train, but easyJet decided to offer cheaper prices than rail operators.
Some people took to social media to criticise the airline’s decision.
What do you think? Join the debate in the comments section here
“Exactly what you need in a #ClimateEmergency! But it’s interesting that Easyjet spins it primarily as an opportunity to “connect with friends, family & loved ones,” said an angry user.
“EasyJet is opening 12 new domestic routes for flights, most are viable by train,” commented another one.
EasyJet UK country manager Ali Gayward said: “We know our customers can’t wait to be reunited with friends and family or to explore the UK so these additional new routes today should prove popular and will further strengthen our UK domestic network providing customers with even more choice.”
Director of Leeds Bradford airport, John Cunliffe, supported the decision.
“The announcement of the new route to Belfast International airport further strengthens the connectivity between Northern Ireland and the Leeds city region, the largest economy in the UK outside of London.”
However, director of Greenpeace UK, John Sauven, said the move showed that the UK is not taking seriously the target to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government committed to cut emissions by 68 percent by 2030.
He said: “The UK Government claims to be a climate leader but is considering lowering taxes on domestic flights despite them being cheaper than train fares on many routes.
“What will it take to make ministers understand that you can’t hit carbon reduction targets without carbon reduction policies?”
An easyJet’s spokesperson replied to this: “The new routes which will operate this summer have been introduced in response to the demand we’re seeing for domestic air travel in the UK and as with all our flights, we offset all of the carbon emissions from the fuel used for them.”
She also said the company was using more efficient aircraft and “supporting the development of radical new technologies to achieve zero-emission flying in the future, which we are committed to transitioning to as soon as they are available”.
The company also cancelled all holidays with non-Tui flights to Indonesia, Maldives, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand and UAE up to and including July 11.
TUI said: “We want to offer our customers flexibility and choice this summer, so where borders are open and FCDO advice allows travel, we will operate to those destinations as planned.
“We are constantly reviewing our holiday programme and cancellations in line with the Government updates every three weeks, with the next update expected on 24 June.
“All customers will be contacted as soon as possible if there is any change to their booking.”
It added: “All customers impacted by these cancellations will be contacted directly and will be able to request a full cash refund.
“Or they can change to a later date or alternative holiday and receive a booking incentive.
Outside the capital, experiences will include Edinburgh Castle and the Royal Mile walking tour, Belfast’s Titanic Museum, Stonehenge, and Chessington World of Adventures.
TUI marketing officer, Katie McAlister, said: “We’re thrilled to grow our domestic experiences programme further, with the addition of hundreds of UK excursions, activities and tickets serving the ever-increasing demand for new experiences, both during travel and while at home.
“Through our website, customers can easily search and instantly book some of the UK’s most popular and sought-after experiences, whether it be for a staycation, day trip, or perhaps a local activity to extend that holiday feeling after returning home from abroad.”
All UK experiences can now be booked through TUI’s website.
The Trump Justice Department in 2017 and early 2018 issued subpoenas to Apple to obtain the communications records of at least two Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA). According toThe New York Times, DOJ prosecutors attempting to determine who leaked classified information to the media about Russiagate suspected the two House Democrats were the culprits, and to prove that, they obtained their communications records as well as those of family members, including minor children.
A DOJ leak investigation aimed at sitting members of Congress is highly unusual. Both the Obama and Trump administrations, in a hunt for leakers, created controversy by obtaining the communications records of journalists, including — in the case of the Obama DOJ — the family members of those journalists. But investigating members of the House Intelligence Committee for leaking crimes — as opposed to corruption or other standard criminal charges — can present different dangers. Neither Congressman was charged with any crimes and the investigation reportedly bore no fruit.
The two House Democrats, among the most fanatical disseminators of baseless Russiagate conspiracies and long known to serve as anonymous sources of leaks to liberal media outlets, reacted with predictable outrage. “This baseless investigation, while now closed, is yet another example of Trump’s corrupt weaponization of justice,” Schiff intoned on Thursday night. As difficult as it is, Swalwell, as he often does, found a way to be even more melodramatic than Schiff: “Like many of the world’s most despicable dictators, former President Trump showed an utter disdain for our democracy and the rule of law.”
Investigating possible crimes — such as leaking classified information — is the job of the Justice Department. To accomplish that, FBI agents and prosecutors often obtain personal communications records about their suspects. But invading the communications records of journalists, as both the Obama and Trump DOJ did, can create serious threats to press freedom and the possibility of abuse and retaliation. The same is true for invading the communications records of members of the legislative branch, particularly ones hostile to the president. An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.
But like so many politicians before them, Schiff and Swalwell have zero credibility to object to this targeting. When it comes to ordinary Americans, both have been long-time champions of expanding domestic spying powers and blocking efforts at reform designed to curb abuses of the type they claim took place here.
From the start of the Trump administration, Schiff and Swalwell were among the lawmakers most shrilly depicting Trump as some sort of Nazi-like figure bent on fascistic control of the United States. Yet their actions were sharply at odds with that cable-friendly rhetoric, as they repeatedly voted to preserve and expand the military budget, war powers and spying authorities of the New Hitler.
Perhaps the most relevant example was a 2018 amendment introduced by then-Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the long-time privacy advocate who had repeatedly sought to rein in the U.S. Government’s domestic spying powers and impose safeguards as a way to curb abuses. Amash’s amendment was part of a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the NSA to spy on the communications of American citizens without a warrant as long as it can claim that their target is a foreign nation and that they only “incidentally” listened in on the calls or read the emails of citizens.
That 2008 law was enacted with bipartisan support to retroactively legalize the clearly illegal Bush/Cheney program of warrantless domestic surveillance. That law also authorizes the FBI to search NSA-collected communications of Americans without a warrant for use in its criminal investigations.
Amash’s 2018 amendment was designed to prevent those abuses and rein in the power of the Executive Branch to spy on Americans. Its key provision was that it “required federal law enforcement agents [including those with the DOJ/FBI] to get a warrant before searching NSA data for information on Americans.”
It appeared that Amash had secured enough GOP votes to ensure passage of his reform bill. Fifty-seven House Republicans — part of the anti-spying wing of that party — announced their intention to support Amash’s bill. Had the 193-member House Democratic caucus delivered its votes for Amash’s amendment, it would have passed, and the U.S. Government’s spying powers could have finally been reined in, with meaningful safeguards imposed.
Instead, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced her opposition to Amash’s amendment. She then convinced just enough of her caucus — fifty-five members — to join with the GOP majority to defeat Amash’s bill. Among those who joined with Pelosi and the pro-spying wing of the GOP led by then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) were Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. In other words, while they were basking in the adoration of MSNBC and CNN hosts for calling Trump a dictator, they were joining with Pelosi and the GOP Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, to ensure that no limits were imposed on Trump’s powers of domestic spying.
Had Schiff and Swalwell been concerned at all with the privacy rights of ordinary citizens, they would have joined with the majority of Democrats in supporting Amash’s bill. They sided with the U.S. security state (and the Trump White House) against the rights of ordinary Americans. When reporting on this repellent act, I wrote under the headline: “The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers.”
So stunningly craven was this vote from Pelosi, Schiff and Swalwell that they were denounced even by the ACLU, which, during the Trump years, rarely criticized Democrats. Though not calling them out by name, the group clearly referred to them and others when expressing indignation about how the same Democrats who claimed to find Trump so dangerous just ensured the defeat of a bill that would have limited his powers, along with those of future Presidents, to abuse the government’s spying powers against U.S. citizens.
The privacy group Electronic Frontiers Foundation described the bill that ultimately passed this way: “the House just approved the disastrous NSA surveillance extension bill that will allow for continued, unconstitutional surveillance that hurts the American people and violates our Fourth Amendment rights.” Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) praised the Republicans who voted to rein in spying powers even under Trump — an effort that would have succeeded if not for the pro-surveillance treachery of Pelosi, Schiff and Swalwell — and pointedly asked:
Thus do we have Schiff and Swalwell joining the ranks of a shameful club: politicians — usually California Democrats — who cheer for and empower the spying state when they think it will be used only against ordinary Americans, but not important and upstanding figures such as themselves. They then become indignant when they learn that they themselves were targeted with the spying powers they enabled.
In 2009, another long-time pro-surveillance California House Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman, learned that her private communications with an Israeli government agent had been intercepted by NSA wiretaps as she was plotting to pressure the DOJ to reduce the criminal charges against two AIPAC officials. She was absolutely furious to learn of this, telling MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell:
I call it an abuse of power…. I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I’m one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, and I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I’m thinking about others who have no bully pulpit, who may not be aware, as I was not, that someone is listening in on their conversations, and they’re innocent Americans.
What Harman forgot to mention during her angry rant was that she had spent years — as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and Homeland Security subcommittee — doing everything possible to defend, justify and expand the powers of the U.S. security state to spy on ordinary Americans. Like Schiff and Swalwell, she was delighted to see ordinary serfs spied on by their own government, and discovered her passion for privacy rights only when it was her conversations that were monitored.
Exactly the same thing happened with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, yet another California Democrat who has long been one of the most stalwart defenders of the NSA and CIA. Feinstein, whose oligarchical husband made tens of millions as a military contractor, spent years as one of the security state’s most loyal allies. She has been at the center of virtually every increase in NSA spying powers over the last several decades. Even in the wake of the Snowden reporting, she was fighting to preserve and even increase NSA domestic spying powers, vowing to block any reform efforts.
Yet in 2014, Feinstein learned that the CIA under then-Director John Brennen was spying on her and her Committee as it investigated the CIA’s interrogation programs. And, like Harman before her and Schiff and Swalwell now, she was furious about it, demanding an investigation and warning: “this is plainly an attempt to intimidate these staff and I am not taking it lightly.” As Snowden himself put it at the time after expressing concerns over the Brennan-led CIA’s spying on the Senate:
It’s equally if not more concerning that we’re seeing another “Merkel Effect,” where an elected official does not care at all that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens are violated by our spies, but suddenly it’s a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them.
And, needless to say, Feinstein, Schiff and Harman were all leading voices in maligning and demanding the prosecution of Snowden for blowing the whistle on the domestic spying abuses they supported against ordinary Americans. These political elites view revelations of illegal spying on ordinary Americans as a crime, but revelations of spying on themselves as a noble journalistic act that require immediate investigations and mass outrage.
There are few attributes more contemptible in a politician than placing themselves above the citizenry they are supposed to be serving, believing that they themselves should be immune and protected from the burdens they impose on ordinary Americans. That this DOJ investigation of Schiff and Swalwell was baseless or abusive may turn out to be correct: time will tell.
But few people have less credibility to express indignation over such spying abuses than these two House members. After playing such a vital role in ensuring that ordinary citizens are vulnerable to these vast and unrestrained surveillance systems, they now want everyone to denounce those same powers since they are the purported victims this time rather than the perpetrators.
Update, June 11, 2021, 12:12 p.m. ET: I neglected to include one of the most relevant examples. In 2019, Schiff, as part of his investigation into Trump’s involvement in Ukraine, subpoenaed the telephone records of various Trump allies and then publicly released them, in the process revealing communications activities of fellow members of Congress and journalists:
Fanatics can justify any action, and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff this week demonstrated where that mindset leads. In his rush to paint Donald Trump as a lawbreaker, Mr. Schiff has himself trampled law and responsibility.
That’s the bottom line in Mr. Schiff’s stunning decision to subpoena the phone records of Rudy Giuliani and others. Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others. The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety.
Check to see how many people expressing indignation today over the Trump DOJ’s acquisition of these records on Schiff and Swalwell expressed even a whiff of concern about that, and there you will see the difference between genuine defenders of privacy and those (like Schiff and Swalwell) who feign indignation only when they themselves are targeted.
Ms. Janey has been trying to remove Mr. White since May, when an independent investigation detailed accusations by his former wife that he had hit and threatened to shoot her in 1999 when they were married. Another woman alleged that he had hit her.
The standoff has pitted Ms. Janey, Boston’s first Black and female mayor, against its second Black police commissioner, who dismissed the allegations against him as false and tainted by racism.
On Monday, Ms. Janey said she rejected that argument.
“The disparate treatment of Black people in our country is a genuine concern, but let’s be clear: Racism is a burden carried by both men and women of color, and I will not turn a blind eye to domestic violence against Black women, or any women, for that matter,” she said.
She condemned Mr. White for failing to express remorse, and said that while he was on leave, he had tried to obstruct the investigation by lingering around Police Headquarters, which she said “fostered a climate of intimidation.”
To allow him to remain, she said, “would send a chilling message to victims of domestic violence, and reinforce a culture of fear and a blue wall of silence in our Police Department.”
Mr. White’s lawyer, Nick Carter, blasted the mayor’s decision, describing his client in a statement as “a Black man, falsely accused of crimes, not given a fair trial or hearing, and then convicted, or terminated which is the equivalent here.”
“This reflects an ugly pattern in our country,” Mr. Carter said, adding that Mr. White planned to file a civil rights claim against the city “to send a message that this kind of unlawful and harmful treatment must not be allowed to happen again to anyone.”
Friction with the city’s Police Department has dominated Ms. Janey’s first months as acting mayor, a high-profile tenure that she hopes will position her to win the office this fall. Mr. White was appointed by her predecessor, Martin J. Walsh, who left his seat to become secretary of labor.
Immediately after Mr. Walsh swore Mr. White in as police commissioner, The Boston Globe reported on a restraining order granted by a judge in 1999, after his wife at the time, also a Boston police officer, said he threatened to shoot her. The two divorced in 2001. Though the claims were the subject of an internal affairs investigation, he was neither disciplined nor charged with a crime.
The city’s investigation described widespread obstruction of the inquiry within the Police Department. Of 21 officials approached by the investigating lawyer, only seven agreed to talk. One retired officer said he got five phone calls from colleagues discouraging him from cooperating.
Ms. Janey said on Monday that she would impose new requirements on candidates for police leadership positions, requiring thorough vetting and background checks.
“The residents of Boston must have confidence the officers charged with enforcing laws are themselves people of integrity,” she said.
Policing is shaping up as a central issue in the race for mayor, in which three of the front-runners — Ms. Janey and City Councilors Michelle Wu and Andrea Campbell — have called for deeper cuts to the police budget. Another top candidate, City Councilor Annissa Essaibi George, has said she would increase police staffing and funding.
GEORGETOWN, Texas (KXAN) — A former Williamson County deputy has been charged with assault and official oppression stemming from the level of force he used against a domestic violence victim in September 2019.
Former Deputy Lorenzo Hernandez, 37, of Cedar Park, was booked in the Williamson County Jail.
KXAN reported on the 2019 incident significantly. Body camera video obtained by KXAN last year shows Williamson County deputies responding to a domestic violence call at an Austin apartment complex.
The video shows a female deputy speaking with the victim. The woman did not appear to cooperate with the investigation, telling WCSO she did not trust the agency.
The victim eventually walks back inside her apartment. Hernandez later showed up to the scene and knocked on the victim’s door. The woman walked out of her apartment blocked the door.
Details of the 2019 domestic violence response that led to the deputy’s arrest
The woman, who asked not to be identified in this report, wouldn’t tell deputies where the man reported in the call went. Deputies called the woman “uncooperative,” and the video shows her trying to hold her door closed as Hernandez pushed his way inside to search the apartment. The woman told deputies the man wasn’t inside.
“Let go of the door, or you’re going to be tased,” the deputies told her.
The woman continued screaming and holding onto the door handle, while deputies tried to handcuff her. Deputies told the woman they were going inside her home to search for an unidentified man involved in the original 911 call.
The video shows the woman yelling as Hernandez placed a hand around her chin and then pushed her head down against a wall. Deputies then attempted to pull the woman’s arm behind her back and put her in handcuffs.
Hernandez and another deputy searched each room, as deputies detained the woman outside.
“We don’t get your cooperation, that is what happens. All this screaming and all this [expletive] does not make us stop,” Hernandez told the woman as he stood in her living room near the end of the video.
Another deputy was uncuffing the woman as Hernandez lectured her.
In the arrest affidavit, a Williamson County detective wrote that the woman Hernandez is accused of assaulting “did not pose a threat.”
“Defendant Hernandez escalates the event through an intentional, unreasonable use of force against [the victim] by placing his hand on her throat directly below her chin,” the affidavit said, adding that Hernandez then squeezed her throat and pushed her back into the apartment wall.
“The intentional use of force by Defendant Hernandez by placing his hand on the throat of [the victim] is unlawful, as no exception provides Defendant Hernandez the justification for the use of said force.”
KXAN has tried to identify and reach out to Hernandez’s attorney about his arrest but so far have been unable to find that information. If we get a comment from Hernandez in the future, we will update this story with that information.
Hernandez has been a peace officer for more than a decade and did complete training in de-escalation techniques. The affidavit states because of this Hernandez should have known what he was doing was against the law.
Hernandez was ultimately disciplined in this case for “sustained violation of the Sheriff’s Office Conduct and Behavior policy,” according to WCSO Chief Deputy Tim Ryle.
Hernandez also a responding deputy in case featured on Live PD that prompted lawsuit
Deputies pulled Mitchell over for not having a front license plate and told him to turn his car off and stay seated, according to a lawsuit filed against the sheriff’s office. The lawsuit states the deputies then called for “Live PD” camera crews to come to the scene.
The “Live PD” broadcast then shows deputies ask Mitchell to get out of his car. When he did, Mitchell turned to run. During the arrest, Mitchell was kneed, punched, choked, wrestled and stunned with a stun gun by four deputies. Mitchell went limp.
Then Hernandez joined the other four deputies. He could be seen jumping and landing on Mitchell with a knee before punching him several times in the back. At this point, Mitchell appeared to be unconscious, lying face-down in a pool of blood.
Author: Wes Wilson
This post originally appeared on KXAN Austin
Manchester United, Real Madrid and 10 other top European football clubs have formed a new Super League, promising investments in “higher-quality” football and greater revenues for themselves, despite threats of bans from UEFA.
The 12 founding clubs said in a statement Sunday that they will govern the breakaway league themselves, and the inaugural season will be “as soon as practicable.” Three additional founding clubs are expected to join, and five other teams will qualify annually based on their performance in the prior season.
Besides Manchester United and Real Madrid, founding clubs include Liverpool, Juventus, AC Milan, Arsenal, Atletico de Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, Internazionale Milano, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City. They agreed to go forward with the plan despite threats of being banned from participating in their domestic leagues.
“Going forward, the founding clubs look forward to holding discussions with UEFA and FIFA to work together in partnership to deliver the best outcomes for the new league and for football as a whole,” the 12 clubs said.
Ahead of the announcement, UEFA already expressed its fury over the plan, claiming it would undertake “all measures available to us, at all levels, both judicial and sporting in order to prevent this happening.”
As previously announced by FIFA and the six Confederations, the clubs concerned will be banned from playing in any other competition at domestic, European or world level, and their players could be denied the opportunity to represent their national teams.
UEFA, the English Football Association, the Premier League, the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), LaLiga, the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and Lega Serie A have today released a statement.Read it in full here: 👇
— UEFA (@UEFA) April 18, 2021
In the meantime FIFA issued a more reserved statement, expressing its “disapproval to a ‘closed European breakaway league’,” but not threatening any imminent bans.
The new midweek Super League games would allow clubs to continue participating in their national leagues, presuming they’re not banned. Seasons will start in August with clubs participating in two groups of 10 teams. The top three teams in each group would qualify for the quarterfinals, while fourth- and fifth-place finishers would compete for the remaining quarter final positions.
“The new annual tournament will provide significantly greater economic growth and support for European football via a long-term commitment to uncapped solidarity payments which will grow in line with league revenues,” the founding clubs said.
On top of that, the clubs were promised a grant of €3.5 billion to support infrastructure investments and help cope with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The clubs also plan to start a corresponding women’s Super League as soon as practicable after the new men’s league commences competition.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Pandemic-stricken French aviation sector laments move to slash carbon emissions by banning domestic flights.
The air travel sector has barely begun to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic but French lawmakers are already preparing another challenge for the shattered aviation industry.
A draft bill won the support of the National Assembly on Saturday night, which would impose a complete ban on domestic flights on routes that can be serviced by trains in less than two-and-a-half hours.
The move is aimed at lowering carbon emissions and is part of a broader national agenda adopted to cut carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 from levels recorded in the 1990s.
Also on rt.comDemand for air travel returns with Covid-19 pandemic reprieve, but why does the US seem unready? Boom Bust finds out
The vote followed a recent government decision to contribute to a €4 billion ($ 4.76 billion) recapitalization of the country’s flag carrier Air France, thus doubling its stake in the airline. The measure is aimed at bolstering the financial health of Air France after a year of travel restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
READ MORE: Heathrow no longer Europe’s busiest airport as pandemic cripples travel demand
The legislation has evoked harsh criticism from both the aviation industry and environmental activists, with the former saying that a period of post-pandemic recovery is not the time to halt domestic flights, while the latter are criticizing the measure for being insufficient.
A citizens’ climate forum established by French President Emmanuel Macron to help shape climate policy had reportedly called for scrapping flights on routes where the train journey is under four hours.
Also on rt.comNo signs of demand recovery: Global air passenger traffic continues to fall, IATA says
According to the latest report by US multinational consultancy McKinsey & Company, it may take air traffic another three years to return to its pre-crisis level.
The reproaches voiced by the aviation sector were strongly dismissed by the country’s Industry Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher, who stressed that there was no contradiction between the bailout and the climate bill.
“We know that aviation is a contributor of carbon dioxide and that because of climate change we must reduce emissions. Equally, we must support our companies and not let them fall by the wayside,” the minister told Europe 1 radio.
For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, 73, focusses her royal work on a wide range of issues, and supports several organisations that help women who have suffered sexual violence and domestic abuse. On Wednesday, charity Women’s Aid shared a new clip of Camilla declaring her support for its Rail to Refuge scheme.
Clarence House retweeted the video that was originally shared by Women’s Aid with the message: “Today, we announce the extension of our lifesaving service, Rail to Refuge, helping hundreds more survivors reach refuge, for free.
“Thank you to the @RailDeliveryGrp for coordinating with us and to @ClarenceHouse for their support of the scheme.”
Speaking in the video, Camilla said: “Lockdown has been hard for everyone. But for the survivors of domestic abuse, it’s been life-threatening.
“I’m delighted to hear that Britain’s train companies are extending the Rail to Refuge scheme for longer, to provide free travel to a safe refuge for those fleeing domestic abuse.”
READ MORE: Camilla Parker Bowles wears diamond brooch with link to Queen Mother
The Duchess added: “If you need help, contact Women’s Aid for support and access to the Rail to Refuge scheme. Thank you.”
While Camilla’s video is packed with important information, a body language expert has claimed she fails to deliver the message clearly.
Body language expert and author Judi James analysed the new clip of Camilla for Express.co.uk and shared her findings.
Judi said: “This is such a vital initiative but for some reason, Camilla does not do justice to the message of help and support.”
She added: “Her body language is incongruent and her vocal tone slides down what’s called a ‘dying fall’, so that the most important words can barely be heard clearly or felt emotionally.”
Judi claimed Camilla appears to be reading a script while speaking in the video which leads to her message falling flat.
The expert added: “By running the script above the top of the screen we see the future queen scanning upwards and across rather than using a vital eye-engage that would make her message personal and project feelings of support and help direct to her audience.”
“Her first phrase about ‘Lockdown has been hard for all of us’ involves raised brows, clarity and an expression of empathy. But she runs her words together when she talks about ‘survivors of domestic abuse’ and her widened eyes don’t really match the message.”
Prince George, Charlotte and Louis likely to leave London again soon [INSIGHT] Kate Middleton ‘confidence lowered’ after Oprah interview – expert [ANALYSIS] Where does Zara Tindall live? A look at Zara’s home with Mike [PICTURES]
According to Judi, Camilla’s gestures and expressions do not fit with the tone of what she is saying.
Judi said: “When Camilla mentions ‘domestic abuse’ the second time she performs an asymmetric smile which is incongruent with those two words.”
According to the expert, Camilla’s well-meaning attempt to seem accessible works against her.
Judi said: “Although it might be important to smile and appear caring and friendly, it doesn’t really work to smile when you say the words ‘domestic abuse’, giving the impression that Camilla is so concerned with her delivery that she has lost track of the actual message at that point.”
Camilla’s voice lacks clarity in the video and “drops away”, the expert claimed.
Judi concluded: “People who need help need easy and clear instructions about how to get it. But after saying ‘If you need support, contact…’ Camilla’s voice drops away at a point when clarity, emphasis and strength would have been important qualities to bring to her delivery.”
Prince Charles, 72, and Camilla arrived in Greece on Wednesday afternoon to carry out a two-day tour.
The royal visit is being made at the request of the British Government and went ahead despite lockdown.
Following the couple’s arrival in Greece, Clarence House tweeted: “To begin the #RoyalVisitGreece, which is at the request of the British Government, The Prince and The Duchess are welcomed to the National Gallery in Athens by the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis.”