Connect with us

World

Why Rishi Sunak won’t live at No.11 Downing Street

Published

on

Rishi Sunak will return to live at Downing Street, opting for the flat above No.10

Rishi Sunak will return to live at Downing Street, opting for the flat above No.10 instead of the flat above No. 11.

Sunak and his family actually lived in this very residence while he was Chancellor under Boris Johnson.

Despite the British prime minister’s office being located at Number 10, every leader since Tony Blair has lived in the flat above Number 11.

This is because it’s actually more spacious and better for families.

When asked why Sunak has opted for Number 10, a Downing Street spokesperson said “they were very happy there.”

Credit: The Time

This follows the PM speculating during the summer leadership contest that his family would ‘probably just move back into the flat where [they] used to live’, if he won.

No. 11 is officially designated for the Chancellor, with Tony Blair and his family the first to make the switch, swapping homes with the then-unmarried Gordon Brown.

First PMQs

Rishi Sunak has faced his first prime minister’s questions, clashing with opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer and undoing the work of Liz Truss in just one day.

Starmer is calling for a general election.

Today, Sunak reintroduced the Conservatives’ moratorium on fracking in England, going against Truss’ decision to lift the ban in areas where there was local consent.

This controversial practice for removing gas and oil from the ground was halted in 2019 after concerns were raised about earth tremors.

Credit: BBC

Meanwhile, Starmer accused the PM of making a “grubby deal” to reappoint Suella Braverman as home secretary.

“He’s done a grubby deal, trading national security because he was scared to lose another leadership election”

sir keir starmer, uk opposition leader
Credit: Financial Times

This of course comes just six days after she resigned over data breaches.

Rishi Sunak says Braverman made an error of judgement and has since apologised.

“[Starmer] talks about votes, about mandates, about elections. It’s a bit rich coming from the person who tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our country’s history.”

rishi sunak, uk prime minister
FILE PHOTO: British Attorney General and Conservative leadership candidate Suella Braverman attends the Conservative Way Forward launch event in London, Britain, July 11, 2022. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

William is an Executive News Producer at TICKER NEWS, responsible for the production and direction of news bulletins. William is also the presenter of the hourly Weather + Climate segment. With qualifications in Journalism and Law (LLB), William previously worked at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) before moving to TICKER NEWS. He was also an intern at the Seven Network's 'Sunrise'. A creative-minded individual, William has a passion for broadcast journalism and reporting on global politics and international affairs.

World

How much does it cost to raise a Kardashian-West child?

Published

on

Kanye West’s hit song comes to fruition as Kim Kardashian receives a jaw dropping amount in child support

Many are surprised by exactly how much it costs to raise a Kardashian-West child. For some, it far exceeds what they would earn in an entire year, but Kanye West coughs up $200,000 per month in child support.

Child support is to ensure the children’s lives are not disrupted by separation. Perhaps, this figure is to keep up with their lavish lifestyles. The amount was finalised as part of Kardashian and West’s divorce settlement.

It’s also been confirmed both West and Kardashian will have equal access to their four children. In addition to this costly monthly pay, West is responsible for paying 50% of the children’s educational and security expenses.

Continue Reading

World

Wife killer Chris Dawson receives 24 years behind bars

Published

on

Chris Dawson will serve 24 years behind bars for murdering his wife nearly 40 years ago

Former school teacher, Chris Dawson has maintained his innocence as he was sentenced to 24 years behind bars for the 1982 murder of his then-wife Lynette.

The 74-year-old was found guilty of murdering Dawson to continue a relationship with his high school babysitter.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Ian Harrison says Lynette Dawson was “faultless” and “undeserving of her fate”.

Harrison described the murder as an “objectively very serious crime”.

Meanwhile, her family has previously the court Dawson is a “conniving monster”.

Dawson will be eligible for parole after 18 years when he will be 92.

His legal team argued there was an explanation for her disappearance, after she learned of his actions with the family’s teenage babysitter, JC, who he married.

The former rugby league player did not give evidence.

He claimed his wife called him after failing to arrive for a meeting in January 1982.

Continue Reading

World

Police given power to use killer robots

Published

on

San Francisco officials have voted in favour of rolling out potentially lethal robots in some situations

Police robots could be hitting San Francisco streets after lawmakers approved the use of robots, which could “incapacitate or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect[s]”.

The two-hour debate finished with an 8-3 ruling to deploy the robots, which are equipped with explosive charges in some cases.

San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) spokesperson, Allison Maxie said the robots will be used when lives are at stake.

“Robots equipped in this manner would only be used in extreme circumstances to save or prevent further loss of innocent lives.”

Officials expressed concern over civil liberties and the scope for police oversight when these robots are deployed.

Supervisor Connie Chan said “it’s definitely not an easy discussion.”

Ms Chan is a member of the committee, who pushed the proposal to the board for debate.

SFPD said it is not planning to arm the robots with guns. However, the robots will be able to kill “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics.”

The proposal was changed to clarify officers could only use the robots after other strategies and de-escalation tactics had be tried.

San Francisco law enforcement agencies use a range of robots to detect bombs and help authorities in situations with low visibility.

The nearby Oakland Police Department has parted ways with a similar policy after widespread public backlash.

Continue Reading
Live Watch Ticker News Live
Advertisement

Trending Now

Copyright © 2022 The Ticker Company PTY LTD