WHAT ATTRACTED YOUR ATTENTION TODAY?

[Cathy]

That is shocking. Were they taking DNA Samples in 2003?

[Stanley]

I don't know Cathy. From the article it seems as though the problem was that the investigators had made assumptions that were wrong.....

[Cathy]

Australia has 46 days of National Fuel Supply left.

[Stanley]

I see they're regretting letting the infrastructure of oil refineries to drop back to only two........

[Stanley]

THIS sign of the times caught my eye.....
More than one in three young men in the UK were living with their parents in 2025, up from 26% in 2000, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The increase is being driven by high renting costs and rising house prices, recent studies suggest. The data shows 35% of young men aged 20-35 were living with their parents - more than young women (22%), although the rate in both groups has been increasing. In separate research, the statistics body found the rising cost of living was the most important issue facing adults, above the NHS and the economy in general.
I believe that this figure will rise as the pressures from unemployment worsen the situation..... It's possibly the most serious change in society for generations.....

[Stanley]

THIS report caught my eye.....
1 hour ago
Throughout US President Donald Trump's second term in office, traders have been betting millions of dollars just before he makes major announcements. The BBC has examined trade volume data on several financial markets and matched them to some of the president's most significant market-moving statements. It found a consistent pattern of spikes just hours, or sometimes minutes, before a social media post or media interview was made public. Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. Here are five of the most significant examples. (read on....)
The question that surfaces in my mind is "Would a veteran chancer Like Trump be able to resist the chance of a quick buck?"

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report on Starmer's defence yesterday in Parliament.
7 hours ago
Sir Keir Starmer has been in the Commons again, defending his actions over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US. It comes after it emerged the peer was given security clearance for the role in January 2025, against the recommendation of officials who vetted him. He formally took up the role the following month, and was sacked seven months later over his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. he PM blamed the Foreign Office The prime minister had many angry words for the Foreign Office, the department that authorised Lord Mandelson's clearance despite the vetting concerns from security officials. He said the department's officials should have informed him at the time - and then missed "repeated occasions" afterwards to make him aware, including when the UK's then former top civil servant investigated Lord Mandelson's sacking last year. The repeated failure to divulge the result of Lord Mandelson's vetting process was "incredible", "staggering" and "astonishing", the prime minister said. And he went further, saying there had also been a "deliberate decision" to withhold information about the vetting process from MPs who had previously conducted an inquiry into Lord Mandelson's sacking. e argued the vetting result could have been shared The vetting process involves asking applicants deliberately intrusive questions about things such as their finances, sexual history, health and family. Sir Keir said he accepted that information gathered during this process - including from two interviews held with Lord Mandelson - should not be divulged. But he added that, in his opinion, there was no reason why the overall vetting recommendation could not have been shared with him. He suggested that this was a key point of difference between him and Sir Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office at the time, who was effectively sacked last week. "He took the view this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation," the prime minister said, whilst adding that he "should have provided this information to me". Sir Olly is due to give his side of the story on Tuesday when he appears before a Commons committee - and his response to this point will be closely watched. He denied misleading Parliament
A key accusation from opposition parties is that Sir Keir misled MPs last year when he told the Commons that "full due process" had been followed during Lord Mandelson's appointment. This is politically significant - because the government rulebook says ministers should not "knowingly mislead" Parliament. Asked whether he might have inadvertently misled the Commons about what happened, he replied "no". He said he accepted that MPs, like him, should have been given more information, but added: "I did not mislead the House". He has ordered (another) security review. The prime minister revealed that he has ordered a review of "any security concerns raised" during Lord Mandelson's time as ambassador. Sir Keir confirmed that the peer had access to the highest level of secret material during his time in Washington. He told MPs the review would be conducted by the Government Security Group, a unit within the Cabinet Office. This is separate to another review, being led by retired judge Sir Adrian Fulford, into the wider national security vetting system.

[Cathy]

It’s Postman Pete’s Birthday .
.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY POSTMAN PETE
.
Have A Great Day .

[Stanley]

Many of them Pete!