Technology is catching up with Thomas Edison’s electricity industry, eating away at the utility business model that hasn’t changed much in a century.

The intrusion of the Arabian Sea into the mouth of the Indus River in Pakistanis forcing villages to relocate inland, and threatening livelihoods.

State forbids preaching to under-18s without parents’ permission The Israeli government is threatening to take off air a Christian television channel that launched in the country to preach to Jews, warning that it will be barred if it breaks strict rules around proselytising. GOD TV , an evangelical...

While the recent media reporting of swine flu has dwelt on the obvious health and safety issues, the threat of a pandemic, whether now or in the next few months, also raises some practical challenges for HR departments across the country. Necessary...

[The Exchange] The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is stealing the life out of the billion-dollar tourism industry in Tanzania, the government has already laid out a warning that at about 477,000 jobs could be lost, while revenue will shrink by 77 per cent if the virus outbreak endures hurting people past October this year.

Tesla chief Elon Musk on Saturday threatened to pull his electric car headquarters and plant out of California after local authorities kept him from resuming production due to the coronavirus pandemic.“Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programmes to Texas/Nevada immediately,” Musk tweeted in a long diatribe, characteristic of past online rants which are not necessarily carried out.Referring to the California city where the cars are produced, Musk said that …

Fishermen in northeast Thailand say they have seen catches in the Mekong River plunge, while some farmers in Vietnam and Cambodia are leaving for jobs in cities as harvests of rice and other crops shrink.The common thread driving these events is erratic water levels in Asia’s third longest waterway.Water flows along the 4,300km (2,700 mile) Mekong shift naturally between monsoon and dry seasons, but non-governmental groups say the 11 hydroelectric dams on China’s portion of the river – five of…

1. Here's why Elon Musk has threatened to move Tesla plant out of California  Hindustan Times
2. Elon Musk threatens to move Tesla headquarters, factory out of California  Livemint
3. Elon Musk Threatens Removing Tesla From California Over Virus Restrictions  NDTV
4. Elon Musk threatens to close Fremont plant and sever ties with California  KTVU San Francisco
5. Should promoters crystal-gaze fair price?  BusinessLine
6. View Full coverage on Google News

MINSK: Thousands of troops paraded before crowds of spectators in Minsk Saturday to mark 75 years since the defeat of Nazi Germany as Belarus held a celebration of Victory Day despite the coronavirus pandemic.Neighbouring Russia cancelled its Victory Day parade over the pandemic and Belarus was...

Tesla Inc sued local authorities in California on Saturday as the electric carmaker pushed to re-open its factory there and Chief Executive Elon Musk threatened to move Tesla's headquarters and future programs from the state to Texas or Nevada.

A Maryland politician who said he would sue a newspaper if it printed his name, Kirby Delauter, has apologized after his threat garnered national attention, the targeted newspaper reported on Thursday.

Tesla Inc sued local authorities in California on Saturday as the electric carmaker pushed to re-open its factory there and Chief Executive Elon Musk threatened to move Tesla's headquarters and future programs from the state to Texas or Nevada.

William "Roddie" Bryan is simply a "witness to the tragic shooting," his lawyer said. He is "not now, and never has been, a vigilante."

On May 17, while delivering a graduation speech to cadets at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, a scandal-plagued President Donald Trump took the opportunity to complain, yet again, about the news media. No leader in history, he said, has been treated as unfairly as he has been. Shortly thereafter, when the graduates presented Trump with a ceremonial sword, a live mic picked up Homeland Security chief John F. Kelly telling the president, "Use that on the press, sir!"

Kelly was presumably joking, but the press isn't laughing. Presidents have complained bitterly about reporters since George Washington ("infamous scribblers"), but Trump has gone after the media with a venom unmatched by any modern president—including Richard Nixon. At campaign rallies, Trump herded reporters into pens, where they served as rhetorical cannon fodder, and things only got worse after the election. Prior to November 8, the media were "scum" and "disgusting." Afterward, they became the "enemy of the American people." (Even Nixon never went that far, noted reporter Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. Nixon did refer to the press as "the enemy," but only in private and without "the American people" part—an important distinction for students of authoritarianism.) 

On April 29, the same day as this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner (which Trump boycotted), the president held a rally in Pennsylvania to commemorate his first 100 days. He spent his first 10 minutes or so attacking the media: CNN and MSNBC were "fake news." The "totally failing New York Times" was getting "smaller and smaller," now operating out of "a very ugly office building in a very crummy location." Trump went on: "If the media's job is to be honest and tell the truth, then I think we would all agree the media deserves a very, very big, fat failing grade. [Cheers.] Very dishonest people!"

Trump's animosity toward the press isn't limited to rhetoric. His administration has excluded from press briefings reporters who wrote critical stories, and it famously barred American media from his Oval Office meeting with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States while inviting in Russia's state-controlled news service.

Before firing FBI Director James Comey, Trump reportedly urged Comey to jail journalists who published classified information. As a litigious businessman, the president has expressed his desire to "open up" libel laws. In April, White House chief of staff Reince Preibus acknowledged that the administration had indeed examined its options on that front.

This behavior seems to be having a ripple effect: On May 9, a journalist was arrested in West Virginia for repeatedly asking a question that Tom Price, Trump's health secretary, refused to answer. Nine days later, a veteran reporter was manhandled and roughly escorted out of a federal building after he tried (politely) to question an FCC commissioner. Montana Republican Greg Gianforte won a seat in the House of Representatives last week, one day after he was charged with assaulting a reporter who had pressed Gianforte for his take on the House health care bill. And over the long weekend, although it could be a coincidence, someone fired a gun of some sort at the offices of the Lexington Herald-Leader, a paper singled out days earlier by Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, who likened journalists to "cicadas" who "don't actually seem to care about Kentucky."

Where is all of this headed? It's hard to know for sure, but as a lawyer (and former newspaper reporter) who has spent years defending press freedoms in America, I can say with some confidence that the First Amendment will soon be tested in ways we haven't seen before. Let's look at three key areas that First Amendment watchdogs are monitoring with trepidation.

Abusive Subpoenas

The First Amendment offers limited protections when a prosecutor or a civil litigant subpoenas a journalist in the hope of obtaining confidential notes and sources. In the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not shield reporters from the obligation of complying with a grand jury subpoena. But the decision left room for the protection of journalists who refuse to burn a source in other contexts—in civil cases, for instance, or in criminal cases that don't involve a grand jury. Some lower courts have ruled that the First Amendment indeed provides such protections.

The Constitution, of course, is merely a baseline for civil liberties. Recognizing the gap left by the Branzburg ruling, a majority of the states have enacted shield laws that give journalists protections that Branzburg held were not granted by the Constitution. Yet Congress, despite repeated efforts, has refused to pass such a law. This gives litigants in federal court, including prosecutors, significant leverage to force journalists into compliance. (In 2005, Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her secret source to a federal grand jury investigating the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. The source, Miller eventually admitted, was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.)

Trump will almost certainly take advantage of his leverage. He and his innermost circle have already demonstrated that they either fail to understand or fail to respect (or both) America's long-standing tradition of restraint when it comes to a free press. During the campaign, Trump tweeted that Americans who burn the flag—a free-speech act explicitly protected by the Supreme Court—should be locked up or stripped of citizenship "perhaps." In December, after the New York Times published a portion of Trump's tax returns, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski declared that executive editor Dean Baquet "should be in jail."

Trump took over the reins from an executive branch that was arguably harder on the press than any administration in recent history. President Barack Obama oversaw more prosecutions of leakers under the vaguely worded Espionage Act of 1917 than all other presidents combined, and he was more aggressive than most in wrenching confidential information from journalists.

Over the course of two months in 2012, Obama's Justice Department secretly subpoenaed and seized phone records from more than 100 Associated Press reporters, potentially in violation of the department's own policies. Thanks to the rampant overclassification of government documents, Obama's pursuit of whistleblowers meant that even relatively mundane disclosures could have serious, even criminal, consequences for the leaker. Under Obama, McClatchy noted in 2013, "leaks to media are equated with espionage."

One can only assume Trump will up the ante. His administration's calls to find and prosecute leakers grow more strident by the day. He and his surrogates in Congress have repeatedly tried to divert public discussion away from White House-Russia connections and in the direction of the leaks that brought those connections to light. It stands to reason that Trump's Justice Department will try to obtain the sources, notes, and communication records of journalists on the receiving end of the leaks.

This could already be happening without our knowledge, and that would be a dangerous thing. Under current guidelines, the Justice Department is generally barred from deploying secret subpoenas for journalists' records—subpoenas whose existence is not revealed to those whose records are sought. But there are exceptions: The attorney general or another "senior official" may approve no-notice subpoenas when alerting the subject would "pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation." 

The guidelines are not legally binding, in any case, so there may be little to prevent Jeff Sessions' Justice Department from ignoring them or scrapping them entirely. Team Trump has already jettisoned the policies of its predecessors in other departments, and it's pretty clear how Trump feels about the press. 

The use of secret subpoenas against journalists is deeply problematic in a democracy. Their targets lack the knowledge to consult with a lawyer or to contest the subpoena in court. The public, also in the dark, is unable to pressure government officials to prevent them from subjecting reporters to what could be abusive fishing expeditions.

As president, Trump sets the tone for executives, lawmakers, and prosecutors at all levels. We have already seen a "Trump effect" in the abusive treatment of a reporter in the halls of the Federal Communications Commission, the arrest of the reporter in West Virginia, and the attack by Congressman-elect Gianforte.

We are also seeing the Trump effect in state legislatures, where the president's rants may have contributed to a spate of legislative proposals deeply hostile to free speech, including bills that would essentially authorize police brutality or "unintentional" civilian violence against protesters and make some forms of lawful protest a felony. A leader who normalizes the use of overly broad or abusive subpoenas against journalists could cause damage all across the land.
 

Espionage Laws

A second area of concern is the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that has been used for nearly a century to prosecute leakers of classified information—from Daniel Ellsburg and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. The government hasn't ever tried to use it to prosecute the journalists or media organizations that publish the offending leaks—possibly because it was seen as a bad move in a nation that enshrines press protections in its founding document. But free-speech advocates have long been wary of the possibility.

The successful prosecution of a journalist under the Espionage Act seems unlikely—a long string of Supreme Court decisions supports the notion that reporters and news outlets are immune from civil or criminal liability when they publish information of legitimate public interest that was obtained unlawfully by an outside source. "A stranger's illegal conduct," the court's majority opined in the 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper case, "does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield about a matter of public concern." But like any appellate decision, the Bartnicki ruling is based on a specific set of facts. So there are no guarantees here.
 

Litigious Billionaires

Very, very rich people with grievances against the press are as old as the press itself. But the number of megawealthy Americans has exploded in recent years, as has the number of small, nonprofit, or independent media outlets—many of which lack ready access to legal counsel. In short, billionaires who wish to exact vengeance for unflattering coverage enjoy a target-rich environment.

Trump did not create this environment. But from his presidential bully pulpit, he has pushed a narrative that can only fuel the fire. The Trumpian worldview holds that the media deserves to be put in its place; the press is venal, dishonest, and "fake" most of the time. It should be more subject to legal liability so that, in his words, "we can sue them and win lots of money."

Win or lose, a billionaire with an ax to grind and a fleet of expensive lawyers can cause enormous damage to a media outlet, particularly one with limited means (which, these days, is most media outlets). Some lawsuits by deep-pocketed plaintiffs, like the one filed against Mother Jones by Idaho billionaire Frank VanderSloot (a case I helped defend), are ultimately dismissed by the courts. Others, such as Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker Media—funded by Silicon Valley billionaire and Trump adviser Peter Thiel—succeed and put the media outlet out of business. Another recent suit, filed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson against a Wall Street Journal reporter, ultimately settled.

Regardless of the outcome of such cases, the message to the media is clear: Don't offend people who have vast resources. Even a frivolous lawsuit can stifle free speech by hitting publishers where it hurts (the wallet) and subjecting them to legal harassment. This is especially so in the 22 states that lack anti-SLAPP statutes—laws that facilitate the rapid dismissal of libel claims without merit.

The VanderSloot lawsuit is instructive. Although a court in Idaho ultimately threw out all the billionaire's claims against Mother Jones, the process took almost two years. During that time, VanderSloot and Mother Jones engaged in a grueling regimen of coast-to-coast depositions and extensive and costly discovery and legal motions. Along the way, VanderSloot sued a former small-town newspaper reporter and subjected him to 10 hours of depositions, which resulted in the reporter breaking down in tears while VanderSloot, who had flown to Portland for the occasion, looked on. VanderSloot also deposed the journalist's ex-boyfriend and threatened to sue him until he agreed to recant statements he had made online.

Victory did not come cheap for Mother Jones: The final tab was about $2.5 million, only part of which was covered by insurance. And because Idaho lacks an anti-SLAPP statute, none of the magazine's legal costs could be recovered from VanderSloot.

Despite his threats, Trump has not brought any libel lawsuits as president—but his wife has. First lady Melania Trump sued the Daily Mail in February over a story she said portrayed her falsely "as a prostitute." The Daily Mail retracted the offending article with a statement explaining (a) that the paper did not "intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an 'escort' or in the sex business," (b) that the article "stated that there was no support for the allegations," and (c) that "the point of the article was that these allegations could impact the U.S. presidential election even if they are untrue."

So which billionaire will be next to sue, and who will the target be? The question looms over America's media organizations like a dark cloud. That is an unacceptable situation in a nation whose Constitution guarantees "robust, uninhibited and wide-open" discussion of public issues, as Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the landmark First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan.

Trump has yet to act on his most outrageous rhetorical attacks on the media and free speech, but it's likely only a matter of time. When he does act, it will be important to remember that constitutional protections are quite broad, and that there's only so much any White House can do to the press without the backing of Congress or the courts. Such cooperation is hardly out of the question, though. Stranger things have already happened in this strangest of political times.

The author's views do not necessarily reflect those of the First Amendment Coalition's board of directors.

President Donald Trump began the week with a barrage of early-morning tweets blasting the courts for blocking his travel ban executive order. But in doing so, he may have just made it more likely that the courts will keep blocking the ban.

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

These tweets followed upon several from over the weekend about the ban and the terrorist attack in London, including this one from Saturday evening:

We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 3, 2017

In January, Trump signed an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days, as well as halting the refugee resettlement program for 120 days (and indefinitely for Syrian refugees). When the courts blocked it, rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump signed a modified version of the order. The new ban repealed the old one, reduced the number of banned countries from seven to six, and added exceptions and waivers. Still, federal courts in Maryland and Hawaii blocked it, and now the Justice Department has appealed to the Supreme Court to have this second version of the ban reinstated.

The biggest question in the litigation over the ban is whether the courts should focus solely on the text of the order or also consider Trump's comments from the campaign trail, and even during his presidency, to determine whether the order uses national security as a pretext for banning Muslims from the country. The president's lawyers argue that the courts should focus on the text of the order and defer to the president's authority over national security. Trump's tweets Monday morning and over the weekend make it harder for the courts to justify doing that.

The travel ban is supposed to be a temporary remedy until the government can review its vetting procedures. But Trump's tweets make it appear that the ban itself is his goal. Trump repeatedly and defiantly uses the word "ban" when his administration has instead sought to call it a pause. 

The tweets "undermine the government's best argument—that courts ought not look beyond the four corners of the Executive Order itself," Stephen Vladeck, an expert on national security and constitutional law at the University of Texas School of Law, says via email. "Whether or not then-Candidate Trump's statements should matter (a point on which reasonable folks will likely continue to disagree), the more President Trump says while the litigation is ongoing tending to suggest that the Order is pretextual, the harder it is to convince even sympathetic judges and justices that only the text of the Order matters." And once the courts start looking at the president's statements, it's not hard to find ones that raise questions about anti-Muslim motivations.

Even the president's allies acknowledge his tweets are a problem. George Conway, the husband of top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, responded to Trump on Twitter by pointing out that the work of the Office of the Solicitor General—which is defending the travel ban in court—just got harder.

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Conway, who recently withdrew his name from consideration for a post at the Justice Department, then followed up to clarify his position.

2) ... and of course, my wonderful wife. Which is why I said what I said this morning. Every sensible lawyer in WHCO and every political ...

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

3) ... appointee at DOJ wd agree with me (as some have already told me). The pt cannot be stressed enough that tweets on legal matters ...

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

4) ... seriously undermine Admin agenda and POTUS--and those who support him, as I do, need to reinforce that pt and not be shy about it.

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Trump may soon see his tweets used against him in court. Omar Jadwat, the ACLU attorney who argued the case before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, told the Washington Post this morning that the ACLU's legal team is considering adding Trump's tweets to its arguments before the Supreme Court. "The tweets really undermine the factual narrative that the president's lawyers have been trying to put forth, which is that regardless of what the president has actually said in the past, the second ban is kosher if you look at it entirely on its own terms," Jadwat told the Post.

Zoom meeting job review scam, fake Labor Department email and a new Android threat. Welcome to Cyber Security Today. It’s Friday May 1st. I’m Howard Solomon, contributing reporter on cybersecurity for ITWorldCanada.com. To hear the podcast click on the arrow below: Videoconference provider Zoom has toughened its security by making it mandatory for users to…

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is threatening to sue San Francisco’s Alameda County and move the company out of California over the county’s strict shelter-in-place rules. Musk went on Twitter Sunday to express his disagreement with the county’s decision not to let certain businesses reopen, despite other areas of the state allowing it. On Friday, California […]

Tesla Inc sued local authorities in California on Saturday as the electric carmaker pushed to re-open its factory there and Chief Executive Elon Musk threatened to move Tesla's headquarters and future programs from the state to Texas or Nevada.

Tesla Inc sued local authorities in California on Saturday as the electric carmaker pushed to re-open its factory there and Chief Executive Elon Musk threatened to move Tesla's headquarters and future programs from the state to Texas or Nevada.

The season officially begins June 1, but some meteorologists who have been tracking ocean and atmospheric dynamics over the past few months say conditions are ripe for storms.

Victoria only state to retain strict rules, as cafes, playgrounds and pools set to reopen across country

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s daily coronavirus email
• Download the free Guardian app to get the most important news notifications

Victoria is the only state not to have announced an easing of coronavirus restrictions as New South Wales signals it will relax its laws from Friday and Western Australia declares most people will be able to return to work from Monday week.

NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian announced the easing of restrictions on Sunday, increasing the number of visitors permitted in private residences from two to five, allowing outdoor gatherings of up to 10, and up to 10 dine-in patrons at cafes and restaurants, provided each patron has 4 sq metres of space. The use of outdoor pools, gym and play equipment will also be permitted.

Tune into our new show Fox League Live on Channel 502 Monday to Friday at 6.30pm and on Saturday at 3pm and Sunday at 5pm.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk threatens to pull the company's factory and headquarters out of California as coronavirus restrictions imposed by local authorities stop the company from reopening its electric vehicle factory.

Frustrated by state shutdown orders amid the coronavirus outbreak, Elon Musk threatens to move Tesla headquarters and manufacturing out of California.

Coalition backbencher wants to know why ambassador threatened a trade boycott after Australia called for international inquiry into coronavirus

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s daily coronavirus email
• Download the free Guardian app to get the most important news notifications

Diplomatic tensions between Australia and China may be reignited with an extraordinary threat by a Coalition backbencher to summons the Chinese ambassador to answer questions from a parliamentary committee.

While the attempt to compel the ambassador to appear at a hearing in Canberra is almost certain to fail because of diplomatic immunity, the push interrupts a pause in public sparring between the two governments over the response to Covid-19.

Tesla sues state authorities over lockdown after Fremont factory stopped from reopening

• Coronavirus – latest updates
• See all our coronavirus coverage

Tesla is suing local authorities in California as the electric carmaker pushes to reopen its factory there and chief executive Elon Musk threatens to move the company’s headquarters to Texas or Nevada.

Musk has been pushing to reopen Tesla’s Fremont, California, factory after Alameda County’s health department said the carmaker must not reopen because local lockdown measures to curb the spread of the coronavirus remain in effect.

State forbids preaching to under-18s without parents’ permission

The Israeli government is threatening to take off air a Christian television channel that launched in the country to preach to Jews, warning that it will be barred if it breaks strict rules around proselytising.

GOD TV, an evangelical media network that broadcasts across the world, signed a seven-year deal with a major Israeli cable television provider, HOT, to host its new Hebrew-language channel that began airing last month.

"I totally support your mask policy," a comment on Costco's Facebook said. "It is small minded individuals who don't understand the reason for it."

Musk has been ranting about the stay-home order since the company's April 29 first-quarter earnings were released, calling the restrictions fascist and urging governments to stop taking people's freedom

Scores of people suffering with the crippling fever, Chikungunya, have been reported from West Bengal's North 24 Pargana District. Twenty-one of the

The current low interest rate environment poses a significant risk for the long-term financial viability of pension funds and insurance companies, as they seek to generate sufficient returns to meet promises, according to a new OECD report.

A decline in government funding of science and technology research in a number of countries could pose a threat to innovation at a time when global challenges like climate change and ageing populations demand solutions, according to a new OECD report.

There are signs of a modest return to growth in global steel demand and production and a price recovery from the lows of 2015, yet these trends could turn out to be temporary, the OECD Steel Committee said after meeting this week. Considerable structural imbalances remain unaddressed in the steel sector, it said, reiterating the urgency of tackling persistently high excess capacity.

The current low interest rate environment poses a significant risk for the long-term financial viability of pension funds and insurance companies, as they seek to generate sufficient returns to meet promises, according to a new OECD report.

The OECD’s third Environmental Performance Review of Switzerland finds that despite being one of the greenest OECD countries in terms of energy supply, greenhouse gas emissions and domestic material consumption per unit of GDP, Switzerland urgently needs to address pressures on its biodiversity.

Fossil-fuel subsidies are environmentally harmful, costly, and distortive. After a 3 years downward trend between 2013 and 2016, government support for fossil fuel production and use has risen again, in a threat to efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and the transition to cleaner and cheaper energy.

New technologies tend to shift jobs and skills. New technologies bring new products, which shift jobs across occupations: with the arrival of cars, the economy needed more assembly line workers and fewer blacksmiths.

1. Elon Musk threatens to move Tesla headquarters, factory out of California  Livemint
2. Elon Musk Threatens Removing Tesla From California Over Virus Restrictions  NDTV
3. Elon Musk threatens to exit California over virus restrictions  The Hindu
4. Elon Musk threatens to close Fremont plant and sever ties with California  KTVU San Francisco
5. Tesla’s stock could see new peaks thanks to these 3 catalysts  MarketWatch
6. View Full coverage on Google News

The group of senior Ministers and security officials was due to meet on Thursday but did not, meaning a full NSC meeting has not been convened since February.

Leaders of unions such as Unite, Unison and the General have written an open letter to Boris Johnson demanding the government puts policies in place to make workplaces safe.

Darwin airport staff are threatening to walk off the job over Christmas leaving passengers with no food on flights.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has hinted his flying kangaroo carrier could hire foreigners for non-stop New York and London services, as Australian pilots object to 19-hour journeys.

Alex R. Barron, 29, of Horizon City, Texas, was arrested Friday evening after the FBI said it received a tip on Thursday evening about a social media post containing a threat against Walmart.

Leaders of unions such as Unite, Unison and the General have written an open letter to Boris Johnson demanding the government puts policies in place to make workplaces safe.

संसदीय कार्य मंत्री; कोयला मंत्री तथा खान मंत्री (श्री प्रहलाद जोशी): सभापति महोदया,जब स्मृति ईरानी जी बोल रही थीं,उस समय श्री टी.एन. प्रथापन और एडवोकेट डीन कुरियाकोस ने दुर्व्यवहार किया है, जो निंदात्मक है । This is most condemnable. महिला संसद सदस्य के सामने थ्रेटनिंग पोजीशन में आना,यह बिलकुल गलत है । She was talking as a lady Member of this House, and at that time, everybody had expressed their opinions. मेरा एक्सप्रेशन करने का स्टाइल अलग है और अधीर रंजन जी का अलग है । But if you become aggressive, ऐसा करना बिल्कुल ठीक नहीं है । It is most uncalled for. मैं अधीर रंजन जी से आग्रह करता हूं कि उन दोनों माननीय सदस्यों को बुलाइए और माफी   मंगवाइए ।  They should ask for the apology unconditionally. …(Interruptions)

Dave Aspden asked Lancashire garage owner Gary Faulkner for a free exhaust to be fitted on his Vauxhall Cavalier. The garage agreed but Mr Aspden never booked and was told he had to wait.

William 'Roddie' Bryan was seen for the first time since his cellphone footage exposing the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was leaked this week.

The group of senior Ministers and security officials was due to meet on Thursday but did not, meaning a full NSC meeting has not been convened since February.

EXCLUSIVE BY MATT HUGHES AND ADRIAN KAJUMBA: Hertfordshire Police have opened an investigation into allegations that Mark Sampson received threatening messages.