Safeguard Defenders

Faruk Fatih Özer stood in front of a passport control officer at Istanbul Airport, a line of impatient travelers queuing behind him. He pulled his face mask below his chin for the security camera. Surely he was nervous. The 27-year-old had unruly black hair, a boy-band face, and a patchy beard. Normally he overcompensated for his callow features by dressing in a pressed three-piece suit. But this spring day he wore black trainers and a navy-blue sweater hastily pulled over a white polo shirt, as if he had dressed in a dash. A small backpack was slung over his right shoulder. He looked like someone who could have been going on a last-minute day trip—or someone planning to never come back. At 5:57 pm on April 20, 2021, the guard stamped his Turkish passport and Özer shuffled through the crowd to Gate C, a flash drive containing a rumored $2 billion (£1.6 billion) in crypto stashed in his belongings.

After Özer’s plane reached Tirana, Albania, at 9:24 that night, he checked into the Mondial, a popular 4-star business hotel in the capital’s commercial district. A couple of days later, he looked at his social media accounts. A mob was very angry with him: Customers couldn’t access their money on the exchange Thodex, where he was founder and CEO, and people were accusing him of absconding with their funds.

Özer posted a public letter to his company’s website and his social accounts. “I feel compelled to make this statement in order to respond urgently to these allegations,” he wrote. The accusations weren’t true, he said. Thodex—which had nearly half a million investors and $500 million (£400 million) in daily trade volume—was investigating what Özer claimed was a suspected cyberattack that caused “an abnormal fluctuation in the company account.” Assets would be frozen for five days while Thodex resolved the issue. This was terribly bad timing for the big business deal he said he was en route to make: selling the company, or so he had told some employees and his brother and sister before he left. All would be made right. “There will be no victims,” he promised. “I personally declare that I will return to Turkey within a few days and ensure that the facts are revealed in cooperation with judicial authorities and that I will do my best to prevent users from suffering.” Of course, there was this possibility too: He was in the midst of pulling off the biggest heist in Turkey’s history.

Before dawn the day after Özer posted the letter, police squads fanned out across Istanbul and public prosecutors opened an investigation. Law enforcement arrested 62 people, including Thodex employees at all levels of the company—and Özer’s older brother and sister, Güven and Serap. Interpol issued a red notice, a request for law enforcement worldwide to find and “provisionally arrest” Özer pending his extradition to Turkey. Search teams deployed across Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, and North Macedonia. There were reported sightings of the dark-haired young man across Tirana, rumors that he had gone to a poultry farm, that an executive from the Albanian football league was sheltering him. Soon, the Albanian police arrested people accused of aiding and abetting him. But no one seemed to know exactly where Özer was.

Özer had vanished at a particularly precarious time in crypto’s annals: In the weeks leading up to his disappearance, so-called rug pulls—when a cryptocurrency exchange or altcoin developer absconds with investors’ funds—had crypto investors around the globe flabbergasted. The CEO of Mirror Trading International, a crypto trading company based in South Africa, defrauded users of more than $1 billion, then skipped town; TurtleDex, an anonymous decentralized finance storage project on Binance, reportedly vanished with $2.4 million; another decentralized finance project, Meerkat, reportedly fleeced investors out of $31 million (of which they paid back 95 percent). Blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis ranked rug pulls as the primary scam of 2021, accounting for 37 percent of all cryptocurrency scam revenue that year, up from 1 percent the year before.

Thodex was at the top of that roster, and nearly every major outlet from Bloomberg to Newsweek published headlines like “Turkish Crypto Exchange Goes Bust as Founder Flees Country” and “Turkish Cryptocurrency Founder Faruk Fatih Özer Seen Fleeing Country With Suspected $2 Billion From Investors.” CoinGeek called it “the biggest scam in the digital asset industry in 2021.” The New York Times’ headline read, “Possible Cryptocurrency Fraud Is Another Blow to Turkey’s Financial Stability.” In Turkey, the country I now call home, people were reeling: For years, crypto had been built up—largely by Özer but by others too—as a way out of economic volatility. Now it seemed like just another way to lose your life savings. But something felt off to me, like the whole story wasn’t being told.

THE PRINCE DIARIES ♚

6 NOVEMBER 2023 || SINGAPORE VISIT : DAY 2 (3/3) - UNITED FOR WILDLIFE GLOBAL SUMMIT

The Prince of Wales attended the United for Wildlife Global Summit at the Flower Dome of the Gardens by the Bay as his final engagement on his first full day in Singapore as part of the 2023 Earthshot Week in the country.

United for Wildlife was founded by William and The Royal Foundation in 2014, and it aims to make it impossible for traffickers to transport, finance, or profit from illegal wildlife products.

This year, the summit was focused on bringing together the organization's Taskforces, partners & law enforcement to show the power of collaboration to end the illegal wildlife trade.

William gave a keynote speech at the event, speaking about the incredible job being done by the Singaporean authorities have taken to tackle illegal wildlife trade, noting that the Republic had seized about 34kg worth of rhinoceros horns worth $1.2 million at Changi Airport in 2022. He also announced United for Wildlife's new partnership with Mandai Nature to build on the ongoing work for United for Wildlife’s Southeast Asian chapter. And about the creation of the world's first international statement of principles, agreed by governments with signatories including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, the US, South Africa and Singapore. They will commit to regular cooperation to combat money laundering from transnational criminal syndicates engaged in the illegal wildlife trade.

A partnership was also formalised between United for Wildlife and Interpol through a letter of intent pledging to combine their operational expertise and global networks to tackle illegal wildlife trade.

Ellen Ioanes at Vox:

The UK is again preparing to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda after Parliament created a workaround to enact a policy the high court declared unlawful.

Authorities have begun detaining migrants to deport to Rwanda under the revamped plan. But the policy faces major logistical issues, humanitarian concerns, and the likelihood that a future Labour government will scrap it. Former Home Secretary Priti Patel initially proposed the controversial law in 2022 as a way to reduce irregular migration, particularly via small boats across the English Channel, which is on the rise in the UK. Her successor, Suella Braverman, also advocated for the plan until she was fired in 2023; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak then vowed to “stop the boats” and promised that the policy would become law. Sunak succeeded on the latter front. Following legal challenges that saw the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights declare the proposal unlawful, a bill declaring Rwanda safe for migrants and that limits the courts’ ability to adjudicate the country’s safety was approved as law by King Charles in late April, despite heavy opposition from the House of Lords. The government published a video on May 1 showing law enforcement authorities detaining people to send to the East African country as soon as July.

The law has been resoundingly criticized by human rights advocates, immigration lawyers, and Labour politicians who say it violates international law and is, to quote shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, “an expensive gimmick.” The law is part of a broader effort by Sunak and his Conservative Party to burnish their image as their government struggles to maintain support in the lead-up to a national election. Irregular migration has increased in recent years, but it’s not the driver of the problems that the UK is facing, including ongoing cost-of-living and housing crises. However, it is among voters’ top concerns, making the extreme anti-immigration law an appealing policy for a dysfunctional party struggling to maintain power.

[...]

The UK’s Rwanda deportation policy, briefly explained

The Rwanda plan has been a policy priority for two years now, and it’s outlived two prime ministers and two home secretaries. The ostensible goal? To deter irregular migrations via the English Channel and other routes, ostensibly for the migrants’ own safety, and to disrupt human trafficking operations.

Though the government has declared Rwanda a safe country through its recent legislation, it is the threat of being sent there instead of potentially receiving asylum in the UK that is meant to deter people from entering the country. Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame claimed that his country was simply trying to help out with “a very complicated problem all over the world” when Rwanda and the UK struck their initial agreement in 2022. But Rwanda will be well compensated by the British government for its purported generosity (more on that later). And critics say it also benefits Rwanda reputationally despite Kagame’s autocratic tendencies (which include threatening or jailing political rivals, repression of the media, and changing the constitution to extend his rule), not to mention the UK government’s own concerns that Rwanda is not a safe place for LGBTQ refugees.

But immigration has become a key policy pillar for the conservative government post-Brexit. Former Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, along with Sunak, all touted their tough stance on immigration, hoping to appeal to socially conservative party members who see immigration as a key issue. Sunak and Truss backed the Rwanda plan, which was first proposed by controversial former Home Secretary Priti Patel. The policy was deeply controversial from the start. It applies to the roughly 52,000 asylum seekers the government deems to have entered the UK illegally after January 2022. Under international law, everyone has the right to seek asylum, and countries are obligated to protect people in their territory seeking asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UK was one of the original signatories to that convention.

But under the new rule, regardless of whether their claims are valid, asylum seekers can now be detained, and forced to fly to Rwanda, where their asylum claims will ostensibly be processed and they will be resettled. The plan “is effectively removing the UK from the asylum convention, because it removes the right to asylum which is explicitly guaranteed,” Peter William Walsh, senior researcher at the Oxford Migration Observatory, told Vox in an interview. It also could change the UK’s legal structure: the UK has threatened to withdraw from the court’s jurisdiction should it rule against the Rwanda plan.

[...]

Costs are already adding up; though no one has been sent to Rwanda and just a handful detained, the UK has already paid Rwanda 220 million pounds (about $270 million) to create infrastructure for asylum seeker processing. That number could skyrocket to more than half a billion pounds total (about $627 million) to send just 300 people to the East African country, according to a UK government watchdog.

Because of objections from advocacy groups, the UK Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), no migrant in the UK has ever been transferred to Rwanda under the plan. (One migrant has been sent to Rwanda voluntarily under a separate policy that pays eligible migrants 3,000 pounds if they volunteer to be sent to the country.) As seven people awaited deportation to Rwanda in June of 2022, the ECHR intervened and issued injunctions stopping the migrants’ removal and pausing the controversial policy. Though the UK left the European Union in 2020, it is still part of the Council of Europe, which the ECHR has jurisdiction over, making the court’s decision legally binding. And in November 2023, the UK’s highest court ruled the scheme unlawful.

Sunak, however, doubled down on the Rwanda policy, introducing emergency legislation to have Parliament declare Rwanda a safe country, as well as working on a new treaty with Rwanda to address the court’s concerns that asylum-seekers might be sent back to their home countries. That legislation, the Safety of Rwanda Act, passed Parliament in late April and unilaterally declared Rwanda to be a safe place to resettle migrants, paving the way for King Charles’s approval and the Home Office’s moves to detain some migrants who arrived by irregular routes.

The United Kingdom’s highly controversial Rwanda deportation plan proposed in a bid to curb unauthorized immigration to the nation has already ignited controversy.

The UK cannot wait for the Tories to be gone.

introductory excerpts on the rainbow coalition:

The Rainbow Coalition was an antiracist, anticlass[1] multicultural movement founded April 4, 1969 in Chicago, Illinois by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, along with William "Preacherman" Fesperman of the Young Patriots Organization and José Cha Cha Jiménez, founder of the Young Lords. It was the first of several 20th century black-led organizations to use the "rainbow coalition" concept.[2]

...

The Rainbow Coalition soon included various radical socialist community groups like the Lincoln Park Poor People's Coalition,[3] later, the coalition was joined nationwide by the Students for a Democratic Society ("SDS"), the Brown Berets, the American Indian Movement and the Red Guard Party. In April 1969, Hampton called several press conferences to announce that this "Rainbow Coalition" had formed. Some of the things the coalition engaged in joint action against were poverty, corruption, racism, police brutality, and substandard housing.[4] The participating groups supported each other at protests, strikes, and demonstrations where they had a common cause.[5][6]

The coalition later included many other local groups like Rising Up Angry, and Mothers and Others. The Coalition also brokered treaties to end crime and gang violence. Hampton, Jimenez and their colleagues believed that the Richard J. Daley Democratic Party machine in Chicago used gang wars to consolidate their own political positions by gaining funding for law enforcement and dramatizing crime rather than underlying social issues.[citation needed][7]

The coalition eventually collapsed under duress from constant harassment by local and federal law enforcement, including the murder of Hampton.[6]

...

The phrase "rainbow coalition" was co-opted over the years by Reverend Jesse Jackson, who eventually appropriated the name in forming his own, more moderate coalition, Rainbow/PUSH. Some scholars, including Peniel Joseph, assert that the original rainbow coalition concept was a prerequisite for the multicultural coalition that Barack Obama built his political career upon.[11]

The Rainbow Coalition youth—made up of Panthers, Young Lords, and Young Patriots—also launched free breakfast programs that were supported by donations from community businesses and ran free daycare centers for neighborhood children. Several operations were upheld by the women of the Black Panthers and women’s focus groups like the Young Lordettes and Mothers and Others (MAO). The federal government institutionalized the School Breakfast Program in 1975.

“We’re gonna fight fire with water. We’re gonna fight racism not with racism, but with solidarity. We’re not gonna fight capitalism with Black capitalism, but with socialism… We’re gonna fight with all of us people getting together and having an international proletariat revolution,” Hampton was recorded saying.

...

In public appearances, the Rainbow Coalition was backed by community residents and Black and brown street gangs—but they also had the support of unions, Independent Precinct Organizations, college students and activists who supported the movement through Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Rising Up Angry, and countless other organizations. Their allies included Concerned Citizens of Lincoln Park, the West Town Concerned Citizens Coalition, the Northside Cooperative Ministry, Neighborhood Commons Organization, and Voice of the People. “It was really based on common action,” said Mike Klonsky, a former Chicago leader of SDS (who, like Hampton and Cha-Cha, had a reward out for his arrest). “If there was a protest or a demonstration, the word would get out and we would all come to it and support each other. If somebody was arrested, we would all raise bail. If somebody was killed or shot by the police, we would all respond together.”

...

In December of 1969, the FBI conducted an overnight raid on Hampton’s apartment with intelligence provided by an infiltrator. He had just been named spokesperson of the national Black Panther Party. A barrage of police bullets struck him in his sleep as he lay beside his pregnant fiance, Akua Njeri, who survived. Another occupant, Black Panther security chief Mark Clark, was also killed.  Distraught members of the Coalition unofficially disbanded, and a handful of the leadership went underground after Hampton’s assassination, fearing for their own safety. Thousands of people lined up to witness the open crime scene, while lawyers from the People’s Law Office disputed the later-disproved official police account, which had falsely claimed a heavy firefight on both sides. Having assassinated its most vocal leader, the Feds had effectively crushed the 1960s’ most promising push for united, cohesive social resistance in Chicago.

"In early February, the Senate approved a $95 billion foreign aid spending package for Ukraine and Israel, which is still awaiting a House vote. Activists say that along with the U.S.’ unrelenting support for Israel, the U.S. has seen a rise in militarized police training facilities all across the country and that the fight for abolition here is intertwined with Palestinian liberation."

"In a striking convergence of international policing efforts, the occupation State of Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) may become a component of Atlanta’s Cop City, thanks to the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE) program, a university-based police exchange program that focuses on “enhancing homeland security efforts through international cooperation and training programs.” "

U.S. solar companies, imperiled by price collapse, demand protection. (Washington Post)

Several of the largest American solar manufacturing companies are demanding aggressive action against cheap imports, arguing in a petition filed Wednesday with the Commerce Department that firms in four Asian countries are illegally flooding the U.S. market with Chinese-subsidized panels.

Though the panels are not produced in China, the petitioners allege many are made in factories linked to China-based companies that benefit from massive price supports.

The complaint comes amid a glut of solar panels on the global market that has driven prices down by 50 percent over the past year, with the International Energy Agency projecting prices will fall even further. Manufacturers are currently making two solar panels for every one that is getting installed, according to the IEA. The oversupply is imperiling a boom in U.S. manufacturing driven by President Biden’s signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act.

“We are seeking to enforce the rules, remedy the injury to our domestic solar industry and signal that the U.S. will not be a dumping ground for foreign solar products,” said Tim Brightbill, an attorney for the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, the group of U.S. firms that filed the petition. The group includes such industry giants as Ohio-based First Solar and Qcells, which has used Inflation Reduction Act subsidies to invest in huge new manufacturing facilities in Georgia.

In an email to The Washington Post, Chinese Embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu said his country’s “leading edge in new energy is gained through strong performance and full-on market competition, not government subsidies.”

“China has been and will always be open to industrial cooperation,” the statement said. “We hope relevant countries will embrace fair competition and work with China to contribute to a world-class, market-oriented and law-based environment for trade and economic cooperation.”

But the petition is also renewing tensions in the American solar industry, as installers of panels and developers of large solar farms warn that placing restrictions on imports could hurt consumers and raise prices. If the petitioners succeed, companies that buy solar panels from businesses in any of the four nations cited could be subject to steep penalties, which federal trade officials could enforce retroactively.

The industry only recently emerged from a bruising battle over the enforcement of trade laws, after the administration found Chinese companies were illegally sidestepping them by producing panels in China but then finishing assembly in other countries to avoid tariffs.

By: Jacob McHangama

Published: Aug 9, 2023

In 2005 a Danish newspaper published a number of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed, which led to a global battle of values over the relationship between freedom of expression and religion. Despite multiple terrorist attacks—one of them deadly others thwarted—and concerted diplomatic pressure from the 57 Muslim-majority member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) led by countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, the Danish government held firm and refused demands to impose Islamic blasphemy norms.

However, recent events have shattered this resolve. Following months of of public Quran burnings in Denmark and Sweden, as well as renewed and increased pressure from the OIC and attacks on the Swedish embassy in Iraq and a Danish non-governmental organization in Basra last month, Scandinavian democracies are retreating from their liberal principles.

On July 30, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced that the government will seek to enact legislation for "special situations where other countries, cultures, and religions could be insulted, potentially resulting in significant negative consequences for Denmark." Sweden is mulling over similar actions. These capitulations have forced these countries to debate how far they are willing to go to defend their freedoms in the face of violence and international backlash.

On the one hand, there are good reasons to be critical of book burnings. It is a poor substitute for reasoned debate and one that will forever be associated with totalitarian states, such as Nazi Germany, in our collective history. But however noxious the ideas of the far-right protestors who torch Qurans, they are not state agents, they are not speaking for the government, nor do they have the power to censor or discriminate. They are private individuals whose non-violent symbolic expressions are intended to convey a message, which however, offensive to those who disprove, is part and parcel of free expression.

The violence that accompanies these events stems both from terrorist groups as well as from counter protestors who insist that religious taboos can only be enforced through mob intimidation and violence, but they are mistaken.

In July, an Iranian citizen burned the Danish and Swedish flags as well as the Bible and Torah in front of the Israeli embassy in Copenhagen, praising Ayatollah Khomeini in the process. But few Danes cared about this deliberate attempt to provoke. No one threatened to use violence, and the protester was not arrested. Rather than demonstrating Danish hypocrisy, the protester managed to show how a secular society committed to both free speech and tolerance can handle offensive ideas, and also how these values serve as the antithesis to violence.

Despite these and other demonstrable merits of free speech, the recent steps taken by Denmark and Sweden reveal a concerning trend. Bowing to intimidation from politically authoritarian and religiously oppressive states sets a perilous precedent and gives oppressive regimes potential leverage to further undermine democratic principles. To sweeten this bitter pill the Danish government has been less than factual in its messaging. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that burning “sacred books” does not constitute an expression, despite established case law to the contrary. The government has also said that Denmark and Sweden are global outliers when it comes to permitting the desecration of “sacred books” even though both Norway and the Netherlands protect such symbolic expression. There are already also strong reasons to believe that the OIC will not be appeased by the proposed Danish legal restrictions, however rationalized.

The next day after the Danish government´s promise to explore legal remedies against Quran burnings, the OIC released a strongly worded statement admonishing Denmark and Sweden for failing to immediately criminalize them and pledging to continue to pursue the matter. The Turkish ambassador to Denmark also warned that the proposed Danish efforts were "insufficient." In other words, once democracies yield from principle, authoritarian states will not respond with gratitude and conciliatory attitudes but demand that the self-imposed restrictions on free speech be expanded more broadly. This is not only true in Scandinavia but also on the global stage.

Earlier this month, the OIC managed to secure a crucial win at the U.N.´s Human Rights Council with a resolution that calls on member states to, among other things, “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred” as a direct response to the Scandinavian Quran burnings. The OIC argues that defamation of religious ideas and symbols constitutes incitement to religious hatred—a category of speech prohibited under international human rights law and in most European democracies. This would not just legitimize but also give legal teeth to the suppression of religious dissent, and would remove the stigma from countries where blasphemy and apostasy is severely punished.

This marks a radical departure from back in 2011, when the Obama Administration rallied democracies around the world and spearheaded a pivotal Human Rights Council Resolution to halt the OIC´s long-standing efforts to internationalize blasphemy laws. The 2011 resolution advocated education and counter-speech against religious intolerance, asserting the protection of people, not ideologies, under human rights law. It called for the penalization of "incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief," underlining that free speech restrictions should shield individuals from tangible harm, not defend abstract religious ideas from criticism or mockery, however offensive. As then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the resolution was a step to overcome “the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression.”

While this broader, international perspective is critical, it is also important to consider the domestic implications of the laws Denmark and Sweden have on the table. The Danish government´s proposed legal remedy against insulting other countries doesn’t only threaten to restrict criticism of Islam. In fact, Danish Muslims protesting U.S. or Israeli foreign policy, or the mass internment of Uighur Muslims by China, could end up on the wrong side of the law, if they protest in ways deemed “insulting” to the U.S., Israel, or China and detrimental to the broad and nebulous concept of “Danish interests.”

Moreover, the Danish and Swedish governments’ misguided attempt to foster tolerance through censorship could inadvertently exacerbate social divisions within their own borders. Hard-nosed critics of Islam and Muslim immigration frequently argue that Islam is incompatible with democracy and freedom, painting Muslims as a fifth column. The external pressure from Islamic states, coupled with support for restrictive measures among some Danish Muslims, risks emboldening these divisive narratives. This stands to harm the many Scandinavian Muslims who appreciate the freedoms and equality that Denmark and Sweden offer, and which sets these countries apart from the Muslim-majority states of the OIC.

Free speech is a difficult principle to uphold consistently. Governments and citizens of democracies alike are frequently tempted to sacrifice this principle when faced with threats or adverse consequences of unpopular or extremist speech. But one only has to compare the vibrant democracies of Denmark and Sweden to the authoritarian regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia to realize that, for all its flaws, free speech makes the world more tolerant, democratic, equal, and free. Denmark and Sweden’s defection from this core liberal principle is a dark day for the global fight for free speech.

==

You don't surrender or capitulate to bullies. Not even when they're pretending to be the victim.

trick or treat!!

thank you very much, anon! oíche shamhna shona duit and you may have the treat (or trick, if you consider it that...) of an irish lesson, a halloween folklore fact, and a snippet of an upcoming piece for @hprarepairfest, which is aiming to become the second thing ever on ao3 for the extremely cultured pairing of rodolphus lestrange/percy weasley.

irish language treat: the irish word for skeleton is creatlach.

halloween folklore treat: not actually folklore, but just full-on medical horror. there is a disease called fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva in which the soft tissue of the body gradually turns to bone. there is no cure.

sneak peek treat: the bit of this fic which you're about to see is very much not a meet-cute... although maybe the flashes from other bits of the timeline might be sweeter.

The voice cuts through the tedium of his filing at midday.

‘Weasley, would you join me in the office for a moment?’

The speaker is not the Minister, with his Abergavenny growl. It is Barnaby Lee, Mr Crouch’s successor as the Head of the Department of International Magical Cooperation. He is an ordinary man, nondescript and slightly vampiric, with his brown hair sensibly slicked back and his robes immaculately tailored in an upright, professional navy. His voice is light, his tone as it is when he greets Percy each morning.

It’s a little strange for him to have been in the Minister’s office without Percy knowing about it, but it’s not completely irregular. There is no reason not to obey his request.

There is nothing to worry about.

There is nothing -

He has learned, by now, that all the days which upend your life, the days which you will look back on as the years race by, start out as days which are completely insignificant. 

The day of the Battle began with toast. The call - Ginny sobbing in a way she hadn’t for years - which announced mum’s death came on a grey Sunday afternoon while he finished a jigsaw. Bill told him about dad’s diagnosis while he was shaving. 

The day he first met Rodolphus began with paperwork. The day he last saw him began with a walk. 

- to fear.

The Minister’s office is as it always is: sleek and spotless. The vast ebony desk is neat, a pile of papers stacked meticulously in the in-tray, dove-grey quills laid out in a precise line on the blotter. The fake window shows a summer shower - a quick flash of rain against a golden sky. The tiled floor is polished. The fanged geranium on top of one of the filing cabinet stirs listlessly.

The only things which are out of place in this familiar picture are the fact that the Minister’s severed head - congealed blood leaking from it - is lying on a silver platter which floats, suspended, in midair; and the fact that a group of men, who should not be standing in formation behind the Minister’s desk looking at the Minister’s severed head, are standing in formation behind the Minister’s desk looking at the Minister’s severed head.

Mr Lee returns to his place in the group. He stands next to Mr Kneebone, the Head of the Department of Transportation, who stands next to Mr Yaxley, the Head of the Law Enforcement Patrol. At the other end of the line are Mr Callaghan, the Head of the Department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes, and Mr Selwyn, from the International Confederation -

‘The Ministry is crawling with them.’

- and Percy doesn’t know what to do. Because these are nice men - normal men - who go into work every morning and file their paperwork neatly and say hello to you in the queue for the lifts. They do not rabble-rouse about Muggleborns in the Wizengamot. They do not pin the Dark Mark to their lapels. They do not tell people that You-Know-Who ‘had a point about the Mudbloods, you know’ when they have had one too many at the staff Christmas party. They are just ordinary, with their sensible robes and their sensible jobs and their sensible wives and children.

Callaghan’s son had been in his year at school. He had been completely, perfectly ordinary.

They are not the sort of men who should be standing in formation behind the Minister’s desk looking at the Minister’s severed head, elbow-to-elbow with -

‘Ten prisoners! Ten top-security prisoners, and they just walk out of Azkaban like it’s a bloody village tea-room!

- demons he has been taught to fear for his entire life, the very worst men in the country.

Tullius Travers, with his crown of bushy grey hair, who had wiped out the McKinnons one-by-one, leaving the children until last.

Augustus Rookwood, with his sardonic expression, who had nearly murdered Ginny when she had followed Harry to the Department of Mysteries.

Antonin Dolohov, with his twisted face, who had killed both of his uncles.

And, in the middle, smiling pleasantly at Percy, as though he thought it was the most normal thing in the world to greet people’s assistants by showing them their bosses’ severed heads, stood -

‘I’ve loved you all of these years in silence. Despite what you’ve done. Despite who you are. I just… love you. Is that stupid? Because I think it is. And yet if I don’t tell you I think I’ll - I’ll - I think I’ll die, Roddy. I honestly think that I will die if I try to keep this inside me even a minute longer.’

- Rodolphus Lestrange.

Daily Wrap Up March 30-April 2, 2023

Under the cut:

A well-known Russian military blogger was killed in an explosion at a cafe in St. Petersburg on Sunday, officials said, in what appeared to be an audacious attack on a high-profile pro-Kremlin figure.

Six civilians were killed and eight wounded in Russian shelling of Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine on Sunday morning, a senior Ukrainian official said.

Russian shelling killed at least two civilians in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region over the last 24 hours, the head of the region's military administration said in a Telegram post Saturday. The two people, including a 5-month-old baby, died in the town of Avdiivka as a result of Russian shelling overnight and into the morning, according to the regional leader, Pavlo Kyrylenko.

The International Monetary Fund board has approved a new 48-month extended arrangement of about $15.6 billion for Ukraine, the fund said in a statement Friday. The loan is part of a support package for Ukraine that totals $115 billion and allows for the immediate disbursement of around $2.7 billion.

A well-known Russian military blogger was killed in an explosion at a cafe in St. Petersburg on Sunday, officials said, in what appeared to be an audacious attack on a high-profile pro-Kremlin figure.

Vladlen Tatarsky died when a blast tore through the cafe where he was appearing as a guest of a pro-war group called Cyber Front Z. Authorities said they were treating the case as suspected murder.

Twenty-five other people were injured in the blast, 19 of whom were hospitalized, the city’s governor said. The Russian Ministry of Health said six people were in critical condition. Investigators were questioning everyone who was inside the cafe, state media reported. Photos of the scene showed extensive damage to the building in which the cafe was located.

Russia’s Investigative Committee for St. Petersburg said it had opened a murder investigation. Investigators and forensic specialists were on scene, the agency said, and that it was working to establish the circumstances surrounding the explosion. Russia’s Interior Ministry also confirmed Tatarsky was killed in the blast.

St. Petersburg’s prosecutor Viktor Melnik traveled to the scene to coordinate the actions of emergency services and law enforcement agencies, TASS reported.

Russian media reports suggested that Tatarsky may have been killed by a device hidden in a figurine presented to him by a woman before the blast. Russian state news media, citing law enforcement agencies and eyewitness accounts, said the woman was attending the event at which Tatarsky was speaking.

Ria Novosti quoted one witness as saying: “This woman sat at our table. I saw her from the back as she was turned away. When she gifted him the figurine, she went to sit in a different place by the window and forgot her phone at our table.”

The witness added: “The host at the stage took the figurine from the box and showcased it, Vladlen held it for a bit. They put it back and shortly after the explosion happened… I was running and my ears were blocked. There were many people with blood on them.”

The independent Telegram channel Astra Press quoted a witness as saying: “Everyone rushed to the exit when explosion happened. I myself saw the girl only until the moment of the explosion, when she gave a gift. She looked like an ordinary person.”

CNN is not able to independently verify the claims.

The blast occured during an event hosted by the “Cyber Front Z” movement, a pro-war Telegram society. “Dear friends and colleagues,” the group said in a post Sunday. “During our regular event in a cafe we rented, there was a terrorist attack. We took certain security measures, but, unfortunately, they were not enough. Our condolences to the families and friends of the victims.”

“Separate condolences to everyone who knew the wonderful war correspondent and our good friend Vladlen Tatarsky. Now we are cooperating with law enforcement agencies and we hope that all those responsible will be punished,” the post said.

-via CNN

~

Six civilians were killed and eight wounded in Russian shelling of Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine on Sunday morning, a senior Ukrainian official said.

Kostiantynivka, home to about 70,000 people before the war, is just 20 km (12.5 miles) west of Bakhmut, the epicentre of fighting for at least eight months as Russian forces try to capture the city.

"Russians have carried out massive shelling of the town of Kostiantynivka," Andriy Yermak, head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's chief of staff, said on the Telegram messaging app.

He said 16 apartment buildings, eight private houses, a kindergarten and an administrative building were damaged.

Yermak added photos showing the partial destruction of buildings and craters from explosions.

Reuters could not independently verify the authenticity of the photos or the number of casualties.

-via Reuters

~

Russian shelling killed at least two civilians in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region over the last 24 hours, the head of the region's military administration said in a Telegram post Saturday.

The two people, including a 5-month-old baby, died in the town of Avdiivka as a result of Russian shelling overnight and into the morning, according to the regional leader, Pavlo Kyrylenko.

One civilian was wounded in the town of Druzhkivka, Kyrylenko said. The shelling damaged two apartment buildings, a school and a bank.

The towns of Vuhledar and Novoukrainka also came under enemy fire, Kyrylenko said.

Some background: Avdiivka has come under almost non-stop fire, with up to 14 rockets hitting the town daily, according to Ukrainian officials.

"Someone dies every day," Donetsk region police, who are helping with evacuations, said Tuesday.

"The town is being wiped off the face of the earth," Vitalii Barabash, the head of the Avdiivka military administration, said late last month.

-via CNN

~

The International Monetary Fund board has approved a new 48-month extended arrangement of about $15.6 billion for Ukraine, the fund said in a statement Friday. The loan is part of a support package for Ukraine that totals $115 billion and allows for the immediate disbursement of around $2.7 billion.

"The overarching goals of the authorities’ program are to sustain economic and financial stability at a time of exceptionally high uncertainty, restore debt sustainability on a forward-looking basis in both a baseline and downside scenario, and promote reforms that support Ukraine’s recovery on the path toward EU accession in the post-war period," according to the statement. “The program, together with financing assurances from the G7, EU and other donors, is designed to solve Ukraine’s balance of payment problem and restore medium term external viability.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked the IMF, including Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, for approving the loan to Kyiv.

“Together we support the [Ukrainian] economy. And we are moving forward to victory,” he said in a tweet.

IMF First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath complimented Ukrainian authorities for their work managing the country’s finances despite the "devastating economic and social impact" of Russia's full-scale invasion.

“Activity contracted sharply last year, a large swathe of the country’s capital stock has been destroyed, and poverty is on the rise,” Gopinath said. “The authorities have nevertheless managed to maintain overall macroeconomic and financial stability, thanks to skillful policymaking and substantial external support.” Gopinath admitted the risks of the program were “exceptionally high,” but she said Ukraine’s track record was a mitigating factor.

“The authorities’ track record of undertaking ambitious policies when warranted, their readiness to undertake contingency measures, and the frequent reviews in the first phase of the program are risk mitigating factors,” she said. “The program has been appropriately designed to resolve Ukraine’s balance of payments problem and restore medium-term external viability in both a baseline and downside scenario.”

-via CNN

WIP INTRO: "SMILE"

and to sadness he was drawn like rot and decay. he would sow his legacy amongst the bones of the dead and become witness to the new world. a world void of all fear and hurt and hatred. and all they would ever do is 𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘦.

SYNOPSIS:

Everyone knew the stories. The tales of the desiccated corpses he left behind, drained and dry - nothing more than a husk - and of the sadistic moniker that emblazoned them. Smiley, they called him, apt and fitting but forever more than the murderer would deserve. He brought with him shadows of a darker age of humanity wherever he went: A shadow of evil, authoritarian darkness that swept through every town with a ferocity unparalleled by any natural means. His presence was like a dust cloud, grinding the hopes and beliefs of whatever sorry town he made his prize - crumbling them to piles of ash and soot and pain.

And everyone knew the old myths that followed him, whispers of Ones of obsidian and midnight, of brilliant sun and gold. How they wreaked havoc for centuries before their disappearance. Gone, without a trace. Or so it was told in the scripture, written for hope and betterment to prevail when there was none to be seen. It is known that a People can forget the darkness of their past, see around the night sky to the dawn ever-coming. But there are some things that should not be forgotten. And Smiley knew; this was their first mistake.

Humans have grown weak in His absence, fighting petty wars through every fault of their own. They slaughter one another without means to sacrifice, with no avid reason, and have come to disbelieve all the fruitful truths once known. And deep down beneath the Bone-Yard, beneath all the stagnant rot and mold and maggots burying their way through their own flesh, He makes his way through the piles of decay. Smiley knows it won't be long now. The crescendo of frothing-white crashing against the cliffs were all that were keeping Him at bay. But now, it seems, He has finally learned how to swim.

or, alternatively...

When the notorious serial killer known only by the alias 'Smiley' makes his presence in Perthlochry apparent, the small Welsh town's lacklusterpolice department do all they can to prevent the spree of the seven deaths that he is renowned for. But it's not enough - it never was going to be. Matters aren't helped when the first victim is the Deputy's very own sister, found torn and drained behind her apartment with a crimson grin decorating her pale face.

Detective Tempest understands why he's being distanced from the crimes. Personal bias is a dangerous game to play in the land of law enforcement. But with nothing but loose ends and a handful of curious witnesses, the entire town plummets to chaos. That's when it becomes clear:

There are worse things out there than Smiley. And they, too, are on their way to Perthlochry.

BASICS:

Genre(s) - Supernatural-horror, thriller, crime

Length - novel, ~90,000 words

Setting - A fictional town in Western Wales, UK, called 'Perthlochry'... present day, I think (could be late 90s/early 2000s, though, we'll see)

POV- Third Person (limited)

Including - LGBTQ+ characters (on the down-low), exes to lovers, buddy-cop dynamics, women in STEM, Evil vs slightly less-Evil, Antagonist turned Ally, (kind of) the Chosen One

This is not a romance novel. There is a romantic pairing between 2 main characters, but it's just kinda... there.

VICTIMS:

Connor Tempest: Perthlochry's Deputy Chief of Police & lead homicide detective

Amos Christian Bancroft: English horror author

Alani Fisher: PhD student of Forensic Psychology & intern

Violet Llewellyn: Highschool student

Alder Llewellyn: Highschool student

Others:

Cooper Miller

Chelsea Wynne

Daniella Reeves

William Cadwaldr

Rose Miller-Llewellyn

WARNINGS:

"SMILE" is a supernatural thriller aimed towards mature readers - so, basically, it's (new) adult.

It's... it's probably the goriest thing I've ever planned out, and it's definitely the darkest. That being said, here be the content warnings, so ya'll beware:

Strong Language

Child Abuse, Endangerment and Death

(Very) Graphic Violence

Death & Murder

Misogyny

Mental Illness

Police Brutality

Abusive Relationships

Religious Connotations

Cults & the Occult

Dubious/Lack of Consent

Welsh People Great British Humour

PLAYLIST:

Shame on The Night - Dio

Killer - The Hoosiers

Night Prowler - AC/DC

Alone + Easy Target - Foo Fighters

One Of My Turns - Pink Floyd

Life Goes On - The Damned

Voices - Alice In Chains

Hunted Down - Soundgarden

Children of the Damned - Iron Maiden

My Iron Lung - Radiohead

⟢ - Notes on Ultra Beasts, Ultra Humans, Ultra Space & 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐅𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘

The existence of Ultra Space and its inhabitants is highly confidential, top secret information, and is heavily guarded by international government and several law enforcement bureaus.

All information regarding the existence, and accessibility, of other dimensions, was completely theoretical, rooted in scientific conversation that did not have a great deal of credibility, until the early 80’s.

The discovery, and study, of Lusamine and several other Ultra Humans that had appeared across the globe, led to the creation of the Bureau of Cross-Dimensional Anomaly Investigation, BCDAI. BCDAI cooperates with regional governments and interpol in order to conduct studies, gather information about these unknown entities, track them, and potentially contain them. The safety and welfare of all people and Pokémon were taken into consideration when forming this division, out of concern of what visitors from other dimensions could do to the world.

Lusamine’s adopted parents played a major role in BCDAI, submitting countless papers and studies on Lusamine’s growth, her unusual intelligence, and her unique biology.

By the time Lusamine was in her early 20’s, her research began to focus on Ultra Space, under the watchful, strict eye of BCDAI. This, of course, greatly limited the amount of work she could do, and so her research grounded to a halt— she refocused on conservation efforts, technological innovation, and other humanitarian work.

With the hopes of winning the bureau’s trust, Lusamine volunteered to work with BCDAI, requesting more legal clearance, with the promise of all future work regarding Ultra Space being kept completely confidential.

Once Aether was founded in her 30’s, focused research into Ultra Space began once more; the creation of the Aether Paradise’s artificial island was done entirely to keep this top secret work away from prying eyes.

Through a series of political events and drama, Lusamine is elected the head of BCDAI, giving her access to all records of Ultra anomalies across the globe, and turning the Aether Foundation into the primary organization for Ultra Space research funding.

Tensions between BCDAI and interpol were stoked when Lusamine began to dispute the legality of agents probing into the Aether Paradise without proper clearance, due to the island existing in international waters. At the time, nothing unethical or illegal was being conducted, but Lusamine still required privacy and confidentiality of her own work, claiming that it did not fall into any particular laws covered by BCDAI.

After some time, BCDAI was restructured in order to move away from being an investigative bureau for Ultra Space; they wished to move their focus onto the welfare and protection of fallers. Lusamine then stepped down from the division entirely, wished to break ties, stating that she no longer wished to be a subject of government research. Lusamine is stripped of security clearance for information on fallers. BCDAI is dissolved. Hard drives are wiped and files are burned. Certain top secret documents on fallers and dangerous varieties of Ultra Beasts are preserved. The Faller Protection Agency is formed.

Lusamine independently formed her own dedicated branch of Ultra Space research through the Aether Foundation, along with a team meant to do what the former BCDAI no longer wished to do: watching the fluctuation of Ultra radiation across hotspots, and tracking the appearance of Ultra Beasts.

Unlike interpol and the Faller Protection Agency, the Aether Foundation uses certain technologies to keep track of the appearance of Ultra Beasts, and approaches people who have made contact with these creatures in order to assure that their existence is kept confidential. Aether also keeps an eye on wormhole activity, so that closer studies can be conducted, and potential Ultra Beast appearances can be recorded— in the hopes that the beasts can be captured and contained.

As of current day, Ultra Space, Ultra Beasts, and Ultra Humans are still highly confidential topics. The common man does not know that they exist. People who are exposed to anything involved Ultra Space are going to be approached, spoken to, and put into a position where they are signing a non-disclosure agreement, and consenting to keeping contact with one of the many organizations keeping a watchful eye on the worlds beyond this dimension. Information about Ultra Space is often scrubbed from social media.

Those closest to Lusamine and the Aether Foundation, and those who conduct their own research on inter dimensional travel, likely know about Ultra Space and Ultra Beasts to a certain capacity, but the Aether Foundation still holds MANY, MANY secrets— hence why Interpol is currently trying to investigate both Lusamine and Aether as a whole.

NCIS: Sydney will feel very familiar to fans of CBS’ well-watched franchise, while also being uniquely Australian, showrunner Morgan O’Neill tells TVLine in the exclusive Q&A below.

The premise for NCIS: Sydney: As international tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, a brilliant and eclectic team of U.S. NCIS Agents and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are grafted into a multi-national task force, to keep naval crimes in check in the most contested patch of ocean on the planet.

The cast also includes Sean Sagar (Fate: The Winx Saga) as NCIS Special Agent DeShawn Jackson, Tuuli Narkle (Bad Behaviour) as AFP Liaison Officer Constable Evie Cooper, Mavournee Hazel (Neighbours) as AFP Forensic Scientist Bluebird “Blue” Gleeson, and William McInnes (Blue Heelers) as AFP Forensic Pathologist Dr. Roy Penrose.

The first international NCIS offshoot’s eight-episode season will premiere on CBS on Tuesday, Nov. 14 at 8/7c, and also be available live and on demand that night for Paramount+ with Showtime subscribers. (“Regular” Paramount+ Essential subscribers can stream each episode the day after it airs.)

Check out the exclusive key art poster above (click to zoom), then read on to see what series boss Morgan O’Neill has to say about the NCIS franchise’s trip to the land Down Under….

TVLINE | What was the genesis of NCIS: Sydney? Was CBS looking for an NCIS set on another continent, or was it, “We need a show for Paramount+ Australia”? MORGAN O’NEILL | I think it was more the former, although the latter is probably a good upside for it, too. My understanding is that CBS was looking to expand the franchise beyond [the northern] hemisphere. Since the show revolves around naval crimes, naturally they looked at “the world’s largest island,” and then they pitched the idea to Bev McGarvey who runs Paramount+ Australia. She’s a massive fan of the franchise, so she said, “Let me take it to Endemol Shine Australia (ESA).” They then came to me and said, “We have this incredible opportunity to expand one of the world’s biggest franchises into Australia. How the hell would you do it?” I got together with the head of scripted at ESA and worked up what this show might look like and pitched it back to Paramount+ and to CBS. They flipped for it at lightning speed, which almost never happens in our industry.

TVLINE | Is there anything that a U.S. viewer should know before watching this, with regards to what’s different about law enforcement in Australia? The first and most obvious difference is that while NCIS exists in Australia in real life, they don’t have the same kind of jurisdictional authority as they would in the U.S., because they’re in a foreign country. So when NCIS works in Australia they work in conjunction with our highest law enforcement agencies — in particular the Australian Federal Police, which are our equivalent of the FBI. From the perspective of our show, what’s going to be very, very different is that it’s effectively the first “blended family” where NCIS has to form a team with the Australian Federal Police and operate in conjunction with them.

It’s Australians and Americans working not always in concert, but certainly together, and working through cultural differences, working through the clashes that would naturally exist when you bring two disparate organizations together. But ultimately they find that there is this core DNA that they share between the two organizations that actually bonds them into a team really quickly, but with unexpected results.

TVLINE | So, each case will need to involve some sort of U.S. serviceman…? Absolutely. The basic premise that NCIS has to find a connection, a nexus back to the U.S. Navy, will continue, but what’s interesting in Australia is that it’s not just the Navy. If there is something that happens in Australia in the Army or the Air Force or the Coast Guard that pertains to the U.S., NCIS does the investigations. So, in a funny way they actually have a bigger remit than they do in the U.S. because they’re looking after the four other arms of the Armed Forces.

TVLINE | What are some fun character dynamics to watch for? Well, No. 1 on the call sheet, the person who gets to kind of call the shots out here, is [NCIS Special Agent] Michelle Mackey (played by Olivia Swann). She’s a former Marine captain/chopper pilot and somewhat of a maverick, so she’s kind of a problem child who’s been handed around NCIS for a little while as they figure out how to handle her. She drops into Australia where we are, in and of ourselves — how should I put it nicely for my fellow countrymen? — a bit “antiauthoritarian.” So sparks fly naturally, which is great.

Then there’s a core group of characters, which in some ways will feel familiar to an NCIS audience, because they know that in the world of the show there are investigators and forensic pathologists and forensic scientists involved. They’ll look at the show and see a familiar architecture to it, but three-quarters of them are Australians and that makes for a very, very different experience. A lot of the things that Americans take for granted about the world will be put up into relief here a bit, and interrogated, but ultimately what’s fascinating about these characters and the first season of this show is that it doesn’t actually take very long to realize that they’re kind of cut from the same cloth.

TVLINE | Did you try to cast the Australian side of the cast with 100% percent Australians? How did that net out? It’s interesting — the show is an entirely Australian show. Its cast, it’s crewed, it’s written by, it’s produced by, and it’s commissioned by Australians. All of the Australian characters are Australians, and that’s 95% of the cast including guest cast. But when you work on a show that’s as big as NCIS, which is is 200 territories, in 60 different languages, with trillions of hours of this show watched, the great relief from a showrunner’s point of view is that I don’t really have to go out and find “stars.” The show is already the star; I just get to cast the greatest actors on the planet! So we were able to cast really wide, really broadly, to find the best actors to slide into these pretty unique roles. And we were able to find a couple of actors out of the UK, as it would happen, who are just remarkable, in Olivia Swann and Sean Sagar.

TVLINE | I know Olivia from Legends of Tomorrow, and she’s great. She’s incredible, and I had sort of been following both her and Sean. I’m a huge fan of [director] Guy Ritchie and Sean is one of Guy Ritchie’s favorite actors to work with.

I’ve worked on a lot of shows and I’m a huge believer in the idea that whatever the vibe is amongst the humans that make the show somehow translates to the screen. And in this case, as we wrapped production on Season 1, even though some actors when they wrap you never see them again, they kept coming back to set. In fact, Olivia wrapped up on the very last day of shooting, but Todd Lasance, who is her No. 2, made a point to be there. It’s a real vibe, and we’re really excited to see what the rest of the world thinks.

TVLINE | Will there be nods to any other NCIS shows along the way? “I once met Leroy Jethro Gibbs at a conference…” or something? Look, there are a couple of little Easter eggs there. I won’t spoil them, but they’re definitely there. One of the things that I think audiences love about this show is the fact that it feels like a universe, not individual shows. And while they each have their own DNA, I think that’s what was really clever about the way CBS developed this franchise is they didn’t go out to make the same show twice. If you look at the original show, the mothership, it’s very different from L.A.…

TVLINE | Oh, NCIS: LA was chasing stolen nuclear materials, like, every other week! Correct. Each show gets a different tonality, a different vibe, a different pace, a different rhythm, a different color palette, a different sensibility. I feel like what CBS did really cleverly was they realized that they needed to expand the audience and to expand the universe, but not just replicate it. So when they came to us, I kind of sat down and watched about 950 episodes of NCIS [programs] in the space of a few weeks to get myself up to speed — I feel like I have a PhD in NCIS! — and what I realized was that they were looking to capture the authenticity of a place. So I went back to [CBS Studios chief] David Stapf and his crew and said, “In order for this to be successful, I think it really has to capture that authentic rhythm, that authentic cultural sensibility of Australia — the colors, the flavor. We should lean into it.” And they said, “That’s music to our ears. Go for it.”

TVLINE | I was going to ask: After a person gets done watching this first season — and if they like me have yet to pull the trigger on an Australian vacation — will they kind of feel like they’ve been to Australia? I hope so, I really do. You’ll certainly feel like you’ve been Sydney. I’m actually kind of surprised in some ways that they haven’t come here and created a franchise sooner. As I said to you before, Australia is the world’s largest island and Sydney Harbor is the world’s largest harbor. And our naval base, which is called HMAS Kuttabul or Fleet Base East, is right in the middle of that harbor. Like, our entire East Coast Navy Base fleet is based in town, so you’ve got an almost indefatigable, inexhaustible supply of stories right in the middle of the world’s biggest harbor on the world’s biggest island. And then you throw in the geopolitical realities of the part of the world that we live in, in that the Indo-Pacific is kind of the hotspot for all sorts of geopolitical tensions right now. It’s the most hotly contested patch of ocean.

TVLINE | The trailer plays that up a lot. I mean, that’s the situation. Pick up the New York Times and I dare you not to find an article about tensions between China and the Philippines, or contested maritime rights in the South China Sea. It’s an incredibly diverse and vibrant part of the world. Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on the planet, is just to our north — friends of Australia obviously, but it’s diverse. You’ve got one of the world’s biggest shipping nations in Singapore [3,900 miles away]. You’ve got the world’s second biggest island, Papua New Guinea, right there. You’ve got all these islands dotted across the Pacific, which fall under our sphere of economic cooperation, in terms of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, and all of them are contested places at the moment. There are lots of forces vying for economic, military, social partnership.

The trailer mentions the AUKUS Agreement, a military alliance between Australia, the U.S. and the UK, which has only recently been signed. It’s a big deal and it’s literally there because we are in a really contested patch of the world right now. The show tries not to too political, obviously — that’s part of the appeal of it, I think — but the reality is we have basically an endless supply of stories pulled from the front page of the newspaper that seem to be really applicable.

Photo : CBS

TVLINE | What specific sites or locations were you excited to squeeze into the show? When we started out, we looked at the Australian Navy base in the middle of the harbor, which is where all the American ships come into, and said, “Wow, it’d be fun to get on that, wouldn’t it? It’d be fun to be able to shoot on the actual operating Navy base.” So, we contacted the Australian Navy and said, “Look, we have this little show you might’ve heard of — NCIS? We’ll be doing a franchise here in Sydney, would you like to help out?” And believe it or not they said, “We’d love to, send us a letter with all the things you feel like you might need across the season.” I went, “Well, we need Seahawk helicopters, and we need access to your biggest ships, we’d like to get onboard your subs, we’d like to work and shoot on your Navy bases all around the country, we’d like to get some air assets….” And they came back and they were just incredibly supportive.

In the trailer, that Navy Seahawk helicopter flying at 50 feet above Sydney Harbor? That’s a real one. There’s no CG. We had to clear the harbor, we had an air exclusion zone, and we had the pilots from the Australian Navy flying up from their base down south and landing on a small aircraft carrier and taking off. It was an incredible thrill.

TVLINE | Were there any more “touristy” locales you filmed at? When you film on Sydney Harbor you kind of spin the camera around and see the Harbor Bridge, you see the Opera House, you see this vast harbor….. We shot at Bondi Beach, which is Australia’s most famous beach. We shot in Kings Cross, which anyone who’s ever been a U.S. serviceman arriving in Sydney will know; it’s the red light district just up the hill from the base, so it’s seen its fair share of U.S. servicemen and women across the years, in all capacities.

One of the things that people think about when they think of Australia is the Outback. Obviously Sydney is not in the Outback, it’s a big urban center, but not too far away you drive up into the mountains and suddenly you’re in this pristine wilderness that’s very uniquely, quintessentially Australian. So, we find ourself up there.

TVLINE | And that lets you include a kangaroo and koala in the trailer! It does!

TVLINE | Someone at CBS was like, “Yeah, we saw your first pass at the trailer, and there’s no kangaroo. You’ve gotta give them a kangaroo.” It was a shameless plug for Australian wildlife, what can I say?

How’s That Book Marketing Going?

    My book marketing effort has been a dismal failure thus far. The present plan is to write more books and beg for reviews, and when I have 100, I will use Amazon’s paid promotion services. I know this awful plan does not involve social media or professional advertisements.

    What was my initial plan? I expected Amazon, Kubo, Barns, and Nobel to promote new authors with gusto. It is in their best interest to turn them into best sellers. Yeah… That is lottery ticket grade, wishful thinking.

    What else did I expect? Honestly, I hoped to find a magic lamp. Many marketing experts can promote something simple, like a book. All an author needs to do is go to website X, pay $50, and BAM! The experts take care of everything. Instant book sales! Woo-hoo! Money in the bank! More wishful thinking.

    The problem is that if someone has money, others will take it. Why should book promotion be any different? I located many marketing sites that promised success for pennies. Unfortunately, the services they offered were laughable. Even worse, they blast people with spam, which angers them. Plus, these sites offered no metric of success and no guarantees—the textbook definition of wasted money.

    Every self-published author faces the same marketing wall. There are millions of old and thousands of new books, with one hundred coming out daily. This vast array of solid titles competes for the reader’s attention. Remember that readers also like eating, social media, television, sports, movies, exercise, work, family, travel, and other costly activities. Somehow, a self-published author must break through that entire spectrum to convince a reader they should click “buy it now.”

    For example, a reader could purchase The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy (an excellent read) or Interviewing Immortality (An astounding book. Trust me, I wrote it.) by an unknown self-published author.

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy is a well-written classic that everybody should read. Why would a reader spend hard-earned cash on a self-published nobody? Another possibility is to purchase a six-pack of Diet Coke. Let’s think this through. Go with the established author because it is a sure bet to be entertained. “You have purchased The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy. Thank you for choosing Amazon.” Good choice.

    Will I ever sell over three books a month? I believe in myself, and the few people who read my words provided positive feedback. This sentiment encourages me, and I have a positive writing future ahead of me. Blah, blah, blah. Answer the question. Alright, alright. The path I have chosen is difficult. Marketing is a skill that I have put little effort into developing.

    What I am missing is a bubbly personality and advertising drive. What if I took the leap and spent money on a billboard with my books? Yeah, I will get right on it…

    I have never been one to give up, and I see success in my distant future. What I need is to be more engaging and spread my wings wider. I am not on Twitter (X), Instagram, YouTube, or any other site, and if I expect any success, social media needs to be part of my core plan.

    I did have one idea. Pay a YouTuber to promote my book. Lots of people promote works through YouTube. It’s fast and easy. Girrrrr. I’m not too fond of that option. Too much risk. Too much money. Girrrrr. I’m in the way of my success.

    You’re the best -Bill

    February 03, 2024

    Hey book lovers, I published four. Please check them out:

    Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.

    Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.

    Cable Ties. A slow-burn political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.

    Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.

    These books are available in soft-cover on Amazon and eBook format everywhere.

Five Ways Darkmarket Link Can Drive You Bankrupt - Fast!

Introduction In the depths of the internet lies a hidden realm known as the darknet, where illicit activities thrive, and anonymity prevails. Darknet markets are online marketplaces that enable the buying and selling of illegal products and services, often utilizing cryptocurrencies for transactions. What exactly are darknet market Markets? Darknet markets operate on the dark web sites web, a portion of the internet that can only be accessed through special software designed to ensure anonymity, such as Tor. These markets are shielded by layers of encryption and provide users with a secure platform to engage in the sale of illegal goods, spanning from drugs, counterfeit documents, stolen data, weapons, hacking tools, and even human trafficking services. Behind the Mask: Anonymity and Cryptocurrencies The darknet market's cornerstone is its dedication to anonymity. Buyers and sellers use aliases or handles, and transactions are conducted using cryptocurrencies, mainly Bitcoin, to ensure that no traceable financial information is left behind. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies enables users to make transactions beyond the reach of traditional financial institutions and governments, enforcing the cloak of secrecy. Challenges for Law Enforcement Darknet markets pose significant challenges to law enforcement agencies worldwide. The decentralized nature of the dark web and the technical complexity of tracking encrypted transactions make it difficult to identify the parties involved. Moreover, the continually evolving technology and the proliferation of new marketplaces make it a game of cat and mouse for authorities attempting to shut them down. The Rise and Fall of Major Darknet Markets Throughout the years, several prominent darknet market markets have emerged, capturing media attention and raising concerns among authorities. One such example is the notorious Silk Road, which came to prominence in 2011 as a platform for the sale of drugs and other contraband. However, the market was ultimately shut down in 2013 after a joint operation between the FBI and other international law enforcement agencies. Despite the crackdown on Silk Road, new darknet market markets rapidly emerged to fill the void. AlphaBay, Hansa Market, and Dream Market were among the dominant players, providing a wide range of illegal goods and services. However, these markets also faced their demise. In 2017, AlphaBay was seized by law enforcement agencies, followed by the takedown of Hansa Market just a few weeks later. Dream Market shuttered its service voluntarily in 2019. While these victories serve as temporary blows to the darknet economy, the nature of the beast ensures that new markets will continue to surface. Mitigating the Darknet Markets Issue Given the challenges facing law enforcement agencies, it becomes crucial to address the underlying issues driving the demand for darknet markets. Improving education and awareness regarding cybersecurity, the risks associated with darknet transactions, and the negative consequences of engaging in illicit activities are important steps in deterring potential users. Collaborative efforts between law enforcement agencies, cybersecurity experts, and internet service providers are also essential. Sharing information, developing advanced tracking technologies, and darknet websites promoting international cooperation can help curb the flourishing darknet marketplaces and bring individuals involved in cybercrimes to justice. Conclusion Darknet markets have served as a breeding ground for cybercriminals, enabling the exchange of illegal products and services while maintaining a shroud of anonymity. Their existence poses a complex challenge for law enforcement agencies globally, necessitating the development of innovative solutions to combat these criminal activities effectively. By raising awareness, enhancing cybersecurity measures, and promoting collaboration, society has a better chance of dismantling the darknet markets and protecting the integrity of the online world.

On March 17, the International Criminal Court (ICC) took a momentous step. For only the second time in its history, the ICC issued a public arrest warrant for a sitting head of state: Russian President Vladimir Putin. No sanctions, weapons, or ammunition delivered to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 has targeted Putin as directly as this action. And even if the immediate prospect of Putin appearing in the dock at the Hague is remote, there will still be significant ramifications resulting from the ICC’s announcement.

Founded in 1998 after nearly a century of major-power wars and conflicts, the ICC was designed to hold individuals accountable for genocide, war crimes, and other serious international crimes. The ICC is a critical pillar of the rules-based international order and has played an important role in getting justice for victims of regimes that flaunt human rights and international norms. However, despite touting the importance of this order and having called for accountability for Russia’s war crimes, the United States has declined to join or recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC in the 25 years since its founding.

Even if the arguments against cooperation with the ICC were compelling in the past, the costs of not supporting the court are now too high in a world where authoritarian empires are once again embracing aggressive neocolonial warfare against their sovereign neighbors. The time for straddling the fence is over: The United States should cease its objections and robustly support—and perhaps even finally join—the ICC. Doing so will not only benefit justice efforts in Ukraine but will also strengthen U.S. foreign policy and international leadership for decades to come.

Despite being an active proponent of the rules-based order, the United States is an outlier in the democratic world when it comes to its lack of support for the ICC. The ICC’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, boasts a broad geographical coalition of 123 state party signatories—including many of the United States’ strongest allies, such as Japan and the United Kingdom. The United States has thus far provided several justifications for not joining the treaty, yet many still see this absence as hypocrisy.

Having served 25 years in the military, including as a legal advisor on international criminal law and ICC matters at the White House during the Trump administration, I know the case against joining the ICC well.

Critics argue that the ICC infringes on U.S. sovereignty, limits our freedom of action in international relations, and exposes our soldiers and politicians to potentially politically motivated prosecutions by foreign bureaucrats. But under closer scrutiny, many of these fears fall flat. Further, in the current geopolitical environment, there is good reason to believe that the benefits of supporting the ICC now will heavily outweigh the risks.

Since World War II, the United States has helped build, reinforce, and lead an international order in which countries play by predictable rules. Conflicts, at least between major powers, are resolved through negotiation and consensus instead of force. This system of postwar institutions provides a bedrock of stability that has allowed for a climate of relative peace among global powers and economic prosperity for the American public.

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is the most serious attack on this system since at least the collapse of the Soviet Union and the greatest threat to peace on the European continent since World War II. As one of the guardrails put in place to maintain the rules-based international order, if the ICC’s warrant is ignored, then the other remaining guardrails to prevent illegal warfare may erode, too. Inversely, abiding by international legal norms, including those enforced by the ICC, has the potential to walk back the damage Russia has already done to the rule of law. If the global community can put up a united front to hold Russia accountable for its crimes, other would-be aggressors—especially Russia’s backers in Beijing—would take note.

Supporting institutions of justice and accountability—even those that could potentially hold the United States accountable—would be a much-needed investment in the long-term viability of the U.S.-led international system for generations to come.

As is the case of any international treaty, support for the ICC undoubtedly involves a certain sacrifice of sovereignty in pursuit of stability, deterrence, and peace. But even sharp criticisms and great concerns about joining the ICC should not dissuade the United States from entering into a treaty that will support the international rule of law.

The idea that unelected bureaucrats in a supranational body can question and impugn the actions of democratically elected national officials is unconvincing. Though international prosecutors have vast powers, they can be constrained by the U.N. system and are only effective when the actions at hand violate principles of international law either in the initiation or conduct of conflict. Any objectively just and appropriate use of force would be beyond the ICC’s reach. One would hope that any use of force by the United States would meet these simple criteria.

The greatest concern about cooperating with the ICC is that doing so would expose U.S. service members and leaders to politically motivated prosecution by foreign bureaucrats. But the court operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning that the ICC will not exercise jurisdiction when a state exercises its own prerogatives to investigate and prosecute potential war crimes. The ICC steps in only when a state fails to use its own national criminal justice apparatus to handle war crimes, as is currently the case in Russia. In the United States, however, the robust military justice systems ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted as a matter of maintaining order and discipline within the armed forces, making ICC jurisdiction against U.S. military personnel unlikely, so long as the United States continues to police its own behavior.

Because the United States is already compliant with core principles of international criminal law, supporting and even joining the ICC would have very little practical effect on U.S. operations. Support for the ICC would, however, eliminate the argument that the United States is hypocritical and send a clear message that the United States plays by the same rules that it expects of all other international actors.

For example, even though the U.S. military has a robust legal regime that effectively polices compliance with the law of war, there have been recent lapses at the political level, specifically the Trump-era grants of clemency for war criminals such as former Navy SEAL special operations chief Eddie Gallagher, who was accused of committing various war crimes while deployed in Iraq in 2017, and four security guards from the private military firm Blackwater—Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard, and Nicholas Slatten—who were serving jail sentences for a 2007 civilian massacre in Baghdad. These actions were not popular with career military prosecutors—including myself—because the lack of justice and accountability erodes not only U.S. moral authority but ultimately good order and discipline within the military.

Justice for its own sake is, of course, a worthy goal. Signing the Rome Statute would be a powerful step toward justice for Ukrainians who have suffered at the hands of Putin, as well as those who deserve accountability elsewhere.

But many short-sighted critiques of the ICC miss the larger point that support for this body is not just the morally correct choice; it’s also the strategically correct one for U.S. foreign policy. A demonstrated commitment to accountability will strengthen the United States’ own institutions and make U.S. leadership of international institutions more credible and viable. Further, ICC membership would potentially chill U.S. political leaders’ appetite for unjust wars that could land them in dicey moral and legal terrain. An added layer of restraint and accountability may prevent future foreign-policy follies, whether by the White House or even by an expansionist China eyeing Taiwan.

American choices made in the coming months and years will either further erode the international system or accelerate Russia’s status as a global pariah. By making the right choice and joining the ICC’s efforts for justice, the United States adds to its own security by fortifying the rules-based international order and dissuading aggressive adventures by its competitors.