Posted on

Kanye West will not appear on presidential ballots in Wisconsin



Kanye West has been kept off the presidential ballot in Wisconsin as his campaign turned his nomination papers in minutes after the deadline.

est announced his intention to run for president on a ticket called the Birthday Party in July and has since been gathering signatures to get on the ballot in several states.

Democrats allege that Republicans are pushing Mr West’s candidacy in several swing states to siphon black votes away from Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Wisconsin is expected to play a key role in deciding the election after Donald Trump narrowly won the state in 2016.

A group of voters filed a complaint with the state Elections Commission earlier this month alleging West campaign workers missed the 5pm deadline on August 5.

That was the cutoff for independent presidential candidates to submit the required 2,000 signatures from Wisconsin voters to get on the ballot.

West’s campaign lawyer Michael Curran argued during a hearing before the commission that West campaign workers did not enter the commission’s building until 14 seconds after 5pm on August 5 but commission staff still accepted the papers, constituting a timely filing.

Commission staffer Cody Davies told the panel the building was locked due to the coronavirus pandemic but he was waiting in the lobby to let filers in as 5pm approached.

This is one of the closest call cases I’ve seen but consistency requires me to treat all candidates the sameDean Knudson

He said West’s representatives called him at 4.57pm and said they were three minutes away.

He said he let them in 14 seconds after 5pm and accompanied them on the lift ride up to the commission’s offices.

Another commission staff member, Riley Willman, said he was in the commission’s lobby to accept papers.

He said West’s representatives placed the papers on the counter one minute past 5pm, but had to organise them and he did not take possession until several minutes past 5pm.

Commissioner Robert Spindell, a Republican, pushed the panel to give West the benefit of the doubt, saying the pandemic has made life harder and his people might have made it to the commission in time if the building doors had been open.

He also argued that Democrats are unfairly trying to keep a black candidate off the ballot.

“We are talking a matter of seconds here,” Mr Spindell said.

But the rest of the commission said common sense dictates that 5pm is 5pm.

Commissioner Dean Knudson, a Republican, said: “This is one of the closest call cases I’ve seen but consistency requires me to treat all candidates the same, regardless of their party or their colour or any other characteristics.

“I think the complainants have (presented clear) evidence that he was late.”

The commission voted 5-1 to keep West and running mate Michelle Tidball off the ballot, but West could challenge this decision in court.

PA Media



Source link

Posted on

Why the West Needs to Stop its Moralising against China


The great German philosopher Leibniz put it well over three centuries ago. Writing in his `Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese’ he stated, `I did not want to examine to what extent the manner of worship of the Chinese could be condemned or justified… I only wanted to investigate their doctrines.’  These days, the issue of what to think, and in particular, what to feel about China has become entangled in the domestic politics of Europe and America to such an extent that attempts to do precisely as Leibniz did so long ago and simply describe and understand without being seen as validating and condoning become next to impossible. Finding a reasonable, critical space to look in all directions has seldom been harder.

Hong Kong is one issue where this is particularly true. The UK has historic links to the city. The capitalist world has always thought of it as a benign place, despite the fact that since 1997 it has been part of the sovereign territory of a Communist country. Everyone had feelings towards this remarkable, hybrid, and unique place. Perhaps that is why it arouses such strong, possessive feelings. It might not belong to you, but it is still, in some ways, a place everyone can feel is theirs.

If there was a time in recent history when the words of solicitude and concern could, and should, have been expressed with the maximum of force and conviction, that was the 31st of July when Chief Executive of the city, Carrie Lam, declared that local Legislative Council elections due in September would be delayed for a year. Ms Lam, calling it the `most difficult decision I’ve made over the past seven months’, went on to say that `this postponement is entirely made based on public safety reasons, there were no political considerations.’The COVID19 virus, which has raged across the region and the world over the last six months, was the reason for this unprecedented decision, she said. But even the least cynical would have had a hard time ignoring the fact that in the weeks and months building up to this moment, from the passing by Beijing of a new security law covering the city coming into effect on 1st July to the refusal to allow some pro-democracy party candidates to stand, even if the government was not avoiding the elections, it was doing a remarkable job of looking like that was precisely what it was up to.

Declarations followed, from the UK , the European Union and the US. Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State in the US, issued one of the most curt and forceful responses on 1 August: ` The elections should be held as close to the September 6 date as possible and in a manner that reflects the will and aspirations of the Hong Kong people,’ the statement said. `If they aren’t, then regrettably Hong Kong will continue its march toward becoming just another Communist-run city in China.’

There is nothing wrong with the US statement. The concerns it expressed all needed to be said. But the context in which it was issued could not have been more tragically symptomatic of the mismatch between word and deed that has all but stymied anything currently put out on China by the administration Pompeo is a key member of, and of those that try to follow it. Only a day before the announcement in Hong Kong, the leader of the free world, Pompeo’s boss, President Trump, tweeted that the imminent November presidential election in the US should be delayed. `With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good),’ he tweeted, `2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA,’ he wrote. ‘Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???’. This was despite the fact that everyone, including senior members of his own party, agreed that he had no constitutional right to demand this, or bring it about. Only Congress is able to do that. Nor that his claims about possible voter fraud are almost wholly unproven and not backed up by serious evidence.

This extraordinary example of a mismatch between word and deed is, however, not an isolated one. It is the culmination of a long, lamentable process in which the Enlightenment powers (multi-party developed democracies like the US, countries in Europe, and inclusive of others like Australia and New Zealand) have slowly, but surely, lost their moral stature. One of the many outcomes of this is to have reduced the force of words directed at China to, at best, political rhetoric, much of it performed for domestic constituencies in their home country with no real impact intended or actually achieved on the supposed target. In this situation, the conclusion is a sobering one. At a time when the outside world should speak strongly in order to uphold its values, the Hong Kong postponed election example cited above is symptomatic of how the US, UK, Europe and other democracies have never been in a weaker position. Beset by the sort of divisions seen in the protests in Portland, Oregon over the last few weeks or in the UK over Brexit in the last few years, it would be a brave leader in Beijing who would stand up to their own colleagues on the grounds that the West still offered a model attractive enough for them to consider emulating in terms of its ability to deliver stability and consensus.

This is not a recent phenomenon. Historians will probably trace this decline to the moment when the US and its allies and their values looked at their peak, around 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under Bush the elder and then Clinton, the unipolar moment dawned. Russia descended into chaos. The Chinese also underwent their less dramatic but equally profound soul searching after the uprising of June 1989. Communism was no longer a viable option. The capitalist, free market West knew how to make people prosperous, strong, and happy. No wonder the 1990s now evoke so much nostalgia.

And yet the divisions were soon visible. Perhaps the shock of September 11th, 2001 was the most dramatic moment. But it built on simmering resentments on the one hand, and complacency on the other, that allowed the management of its aftermath to cause the US and China to paper over their differences and wage a war on terror that meant the State Department Pompeo now heads allowed two Xinjiang groups to be put on an international terrorist list. From that first, albeit small, act of complicity, many others flowed.

The Chinese and others watched as the US and its most faithful allies went back into the Middle East, waging the Second Iraq War in 2003. That soon unravelled. Its grounds were spurious (no weapons of mass destruction were found, despite the use of these as the reason for going in). The war was won, but the peace became long, chaotic, and bloody. Perhaps most damaging of all, with extra renditions, enhanced interrogation techniques (for which read torture), Guantanamo Bay, and the exposure of appalling abuses in jails in Iraq itself by American soldiers, the `free world’ looked harder and harder to admire. In the end, a sort of truth prevailed. Accountability was exercised. Bush and Blair, in particular, suffered catastrophic collapse in their reputations from which they have never recovered.  But the proponents of democratic, Western based values emerged from all of this battered, and often tarnished, their moral stature diminished.

The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 only reinforced the message that the capitalist world was not even able to supply answers to the very things it still maintained the strongest claims to leadership on. As historian Adam Tooze has shown in clinical detail in his 2017 book `Crashed’, mismanagement in the first place was more than supplemented by greed, protection of vested interest, and immorality. Even more devastating, it was the Chinese and their growth after 2009 that stabilised much of the global situation. Unlike with the Gulf War debacles, however, almost none were held to account for the loss of livelihood and wealth that flowed from the collapse of markets and growth around 2008. On top of the moral collapse in geopolitics, there was an even more damaging one in the world of finance and the economy.

In all of these issues, China in particular, despite many accusations levelled at it, is not guilty. It did not remotely have a role in the reasons for the US and others getting sucked into the War on Terror – and nor did it want to see 2008, despite some economists blaming its own economy for bringing about the distortions that led to the whole event. China’s main issue, as has become clear since, is that, in both these historic areas, it was largely able to move through without any detrimental effect to itself. In fact, by accident rather than design, as the US and other powers harmed themselves, China simply carried on economically, growing stronger.  

The War on Terror and the financial crisis were political and geopolitical issues. But they have had a massive impact on the moral standing of the West and have undermined their confidence. They have created clear, and in many places tragic, divisions. No one can observe the protests that swept across the US over Black Lives Matters in mid-2020 and see people pitted against people without a deep sense of unhappiness. The US seems to be going through a terrifying breakdown, in which its most senior elected official, a person who has historically been regarded as the most important spokesperson for democratic values by the world’s most successful and important democracy, seems to be trying to undermine and denigrate the values they are meant to stand for. For all the complaints about interference by parties from Russia to China in the 2016 US election, one has to be clear about one thing. Even if these claims are true (and many probably are), no one, neither Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, could more forcefully and effectively undermine the values of democracy than Donald Trump has done over the last few weeks.  And it was, in the end, not Xi or Putin that put him there, but the electoral system and the electorate of the United States of America. If one does not apportion blame fairly and honestly in the right place, how can one really deal with the problems one is facing?

In this context, COVID19 carries deep symbolic weight. As of August 2020, China, where most believe the virus started, has managed to control the spread of the infection and is now emerging from the initial phase of economic downturn by reporting a 3.2 percent GDP rise in the second quarter of the year. As this happens, Europe is moving into a deep recession, with fears of a second spike in infections and fatalities. The UK has shrunk by a fifth of GDP in the first three months of the year while suffering one of the worst levels of death from the disease. By the end of June, America had lost around 12 million jobs and saw its GDP contract by 4.8 per cent, with a 30 per cent contraction predicted, the worst figure ever recorded. It, too, is still fighting the disease, with issues like the wearing of masks politicised and fought over.

This is not to denigrate the efforts these countries have made to deal with the pandemic. It is to acknowledge that no one has found this vast challenge easy to handle. In the very early part of the year, there were criticisms made of China being unfit to deal with an issue like this because of its governance system. This was going to be, in the words of one analysis, the country’s Chernobyl moment. And yet, others quickly became consumed in events that showed their own decision making processes and governance capacity were also, albeit for different reasons, imperfect and chaotic. Had COVID19 been like the SARS crisis of 2003, it would have neatly fitted the narrative of a regional China-centric problem, and one that showed why this area and its values and governance were a problem. Any sober analysis of COVID19 would need to recognise that, in different ways, and for different reasons, almost everyone has a problem. This pandemic has been a great leveller. The narrative has clearly changed.

That means that the most prudent response should be one of humility. No one knows what sort of world we are moving into. The economic impact of the pandemic will produce a politics it is hard to predict for governments no matter what their structure and nature. The worst outcomes – high job losses, disappearance of growth – are too terrible to contemplate. At best, there needs to be more unity, more joint purpose, and far less parochial political point scoring in order to confront this vast shared problem.  The need for humility and a more circumspect tone in order to achieve that have never been clearer. Instead, there have been almost toxic levels of anger and blame that have boiled over from this towards China, particularly in the US and to some extent in Britain, Australia and other democracies. The desire by some political figures, from Trump downwards, to clamber on a moral high ground that has long since disappeared for them has simply proved too hard to resist.

In 2020, there is an important moment to stand back from the chaos we all see unfolding and do two things fundamentally differently. The first is to purge our language, outside China, of the constant desire to urge it to become like us, and to be constantly wanting to preach and urge it to reform and change in ways that will, we assume, make it more like us. I write as someone who in the past did think that was what we should do. Events in the last decade or so have shown that the situation is far too complex and the variables culturally and politically in China far too great, for one to start projecting on it templates and models from elsewhere that we have no idea will really work. These range from the rise of a highly autocratic leader like Xi Jinping against some expectations that China would move in a more liberal direction, to the constant predictions that the country is about to implode. It is a difficult thing to say and cuts against our usual desire to be idealistic, but at the moment, and probably far in the future, the best we can hope from China is simply to be stable. We no longer have the luxury of our own stability and its track record to sit on when making judgements about the People’s Republic. The harsh fact, and one that needs to be honestly and candidly recognised, is that in the last two decades, it is the US and its allies who have been the source of more instability than China!

That doesn’t mean that on issues like Hong Kong and the postponed, even cancelled, elections that the democratic world shouldn’t speak out. But the most powerful thing it should do is to start living up to its own values and in that way, being the best advert for their desirability and attractiveness. That means an acknowledgement that, in the last few years, this has not been the case. Europe and the US have often been internally divided, fractious, and angry. They have acted much of the time almost as though they didn’t really believe in the values they were espousing. It is no good blaming Moscow and Beijing for this. The deepest wound were the self-inflicted ones. Consensus was lost in our societies. 2020 should be the moment when that gets rebuilt. Otherwise, we will be living proof that our values are just for speaking about, not living up to. And finally, there is the second thing we can all do: inculcate the idea of a responsible attitude towards China. It is fine that, for instance, politicians in the UK now feel because of COVID19 that they have to have an attitude and an opinion about China. But it would be good if they were to also avail themselves as much as possible of some knowledge and understanding available.

There needs to be much more support for basic education about China and for knowledge-based engagement with it. The posture of the Johnson government, on the surface at least, is to be data driven. And yet, on China, there is scant evidence of even a decent level of understanding amongst most politicians, opinion formers, and commentators. This was recognised in a report recently by Professor Rana Mitter of Oxford  and Sophia Garston for the British Foreign Policy Group issued on the fateful day Carrie Lam made her declaration in Hong Kong on July 31.  Knowledge, humility, and honesty will be the things that help the outside world deal with the historic challenge of China’s rise. Without those, it is hard to see how any impact will be made on the leaders of a country that currently see in the politicians facing them from Canberra, to Berlin, London and Washington the precise opposite.

Further Reading on E-International Relations




Source link

Posted on

Kanye West announces he’s running for president


The controversial rapper will have to defeat friend Donald Trump.

It’s unclear whether he’s consulted with his friend Donald Trump, but rapper Kanye West has announced he’s ready to unseat the Republican president.

“We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future,” West wrote on Twitter Saturday evening. “I am running for president of the United States! #2020VISION”

It’s not apparent how serious he is about running, but it seems unlikely the polarizing entertainer could actually unseat Trump. It’s probably more likely he could use a little publicity for his upcoming album, “God’s Country,” and its first single, “Wash Us in the Blood,” which was released earlier this week.

But Trump himself was a reality TV star and former President Ronald Reagan of course made his name as a Hollywood actor before entering politics.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Trump both have a few hundred million dollar fundraising advantage on the 21-time Grammy winner. Though his wife, Kim Kardashian, is very nearly a billionaire after selling 20% of her KKW Beauty last month if he’s looking to borrow a few hundred million.

If West does actually want to run for president, he would have to do so as an independent. And even that would take him acquiring the necessary signatures to get on November’s ballot. Bad news for voters in Indiana, Maine, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Texas — the deadline has already passed to file and you won’t get a chance to vote for West. (Unless you want to write him in.)

West, 43, made a surreal appearance in the Oval Office in October 2018, meeting with Trump after professing his love for the current president. The move ostracized the Chicago rapper from many of his peers in the entertainment industry. In the end it turned out West hadn’t even voted in the 2016 election.

Donning a “Make America Great Again” hat, the two were set to talk about the president’s appeal to African Americans. But in reality the conversation swung from his IQ — he’s in the 98th percentile, he said — to his mental health to Ford needing to design the “fliest most amazing” cars and his comments on live TV during a Hurricane Katrina charity fundraiser that George W. Bush didn’t care about Black people. All the while, he tested television producers’ censor buttons.

The two actually did discuss West running for president, believe it or not.

Trump said the rapper “could very well be” a future presidential candidate.

“Only after …” West responded, referring to after Trump left office.

“That’s good, I’m glad to hear that,” Trump said.

Apparently, he’s moved up the date.

He seemed to imply in the May issue of GQ that he was going to vote for Trump this year.

“We know who I’m voting on,” West told the magazine. “And I’m not going to be told by the people around me and the people that have their agenda that my career is going to be over. Because guess what: I’m still here!”

Trump has also made acquaintances with West’s wife. Kardashian has visited the White House multiple times and met with Trump to push criminal reform policy. She first met with the president in 2018 when she secured the commutation of a Tennessee woman’s life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense.

Kardashian visited the White House most recently in March along with three other women who had their sentences commuted by the president.

For what it’s worth, Kardashian tweeted an American flag emoji in response to her husband’s declaration.

One tweet before he made his proclamation, West shared a July 1 photo with maybe the only celebrity figure more polarizing than himself: Elon Musk.

Musk immediately responded to West’s presidential announcement, writing, “You have my full support.”

ABC News’ Jordyn Phelps contributed to this report.



Source link

Posted on

Israel wages war of semantics over West Bank ‘Area C’


Jerusalem (AFP) – To the United Nations, “Area C” is Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. But Israel, which aims to annex parts of the territory, is waging a war of semantics over its status.

Pro-Israel NGOs and more recently a government agency are using email and social media to take aim at foreign media about their “biased” grammar when describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But rather than trying to impose the biblical “Judea and Samaria” term used by Israel for the West Bank, the reproaches focus on the Oslo peace accords of the 1990s.

As part of these interim Israeli-Palestinian agreements, the West Bank was divided into Areas A, B and C. The first two zones constitute around 40 percent of the territory and were due to be largely under Palestinian jurisdiction.

Area C was to remain under full Israeli control, with the intention of Israel transferring part of the zone to the Palestinians under a final agreement.

But peace talks collapsed and Israel now intends to annex its settlements and the Jordan Valley — which lie in Area C — and could set such plans in motion from July 1.

Annexation forms part of a broader US peace plan unveiled in January, which paves the way for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state in the remaining territory.

Currently more than 450,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank, alongside more than 2.8 million Palestinians.

Washington is now proposing a 50-50 split of Area C, separating around 300,000 Palestinians who live there from the settlers whose homes would become part of Israel.

Yossi Beilin, one of the Israeli negotiators of the Oslo accords, said that Area C was intended to become “part of Palestine” in a final deal.

Viewing Area C now as Israeli territory “abuses the Oslo agreement”, he told AFP, by turning something “interim” into something “forever”.

Beilin said the Israeli right believes they are being “very generous” in proposing to divide the area in two.

“They don’t understand why the world is against it,” said Beilin, who has served as a minister for the left-wing Labor party.

– ‘Disputed’ land? –

The West Bank was ruled by Jordan following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Amman later annexed the territory, in a move never recognised by the international community.

Israel drove out Jordanian forces in the 1967 Six-Day War and sees the land as “disputed”, opposing the term “occupied”, which is widely used in international media.

An Israeli government official recently told a European correspondent to abandon the phrase “occupied Palestinian territory”.

Foreign media including AFP describe Areas A, B and C as Palestinian territories, referring to the region as the “occupied West Bank”.

The United Nations special envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, clarified to AFP that Area C is “considered occupied Palestinian territory”.

But efforts by an Israeli government department to seek out journalists on social media — telling them to scrap the term — have escalated in recent weeks.

“I believe this public nitpicking on Twitter is a new phenomenon,” said Glenys Sugarman, former director of Israel’s Foreign Press Association.

“I handed over the FPA towards the end of last year — I was not aware of anything like this by the GPO,” she said, referring to Israel’s Government Press Office.

The GPO, which is linked to the prime minister’s office, acknowledged “occasional engagements with incorrect/inaccurate/biased reports in the media”.

The government department stressed, however, that it was not “the GPO’s role” to clarify Area C terminology ahead of Israel’s possible annexation.



Source link

Posted on

North West mayors urge caution and hit out at Westminster as regional R number passes 1 | UK | News


Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram – mayors of Manchester and Liverpool respectively – have urged the government to allow regional councils to decide when it is right to open schools to a wider number of pupils, going forward. The two mayors also called on the Prime Minister to provide confirmation that retail outlets should still be allowed to widely reopen on June 15 as part of the government’s plan to ease lockdown measures.

It comes after researchers from Public Health England and Cambridge University last week warned that the R number in the North West has crept above 1.

The R number is what the government is keeping a close watch on around the country. It represents the number of people that will be infected by each person that is confirmed positive for the virus.

Thus, an R number above 1 means that more and more people will be infected over time.

The North West is currently at 1.01 – higher than anywhere else in England and an increase of 0.73 a few weeks ago, according to the Manchester Evening News (MEN).

The two mayors said in a joint statement: “We ask everyone to make a renewed commitment to follow the official guidance and to stay home as much as possible,” I News reports.

“In fact, we would go further and advise people to err on the side of caution and to use the new freedoms carefully and safely.”

The rise has fuelled concerns among officials that planning for the Covid-19 response in England is too centralised, and that local councils are not getting enough information from Westminster.

This morning, Manchester mayor Andy Burnham held a press conference to address the concerns raised by the R number in the North West.

READ MORE: Americans are drinking BLEACH to prevent COVID-19 in shock new data

I News reports that the number of reported hospital admissions for Covid-19 in Greater Manchester is currently higher than it’s been since late April.

On Sunday, both Mr Burnham and Mr Rotheram wrote to the Prime Minister calling for “extra reassurance” for the North West given the rise in transmission rate.

The two mayors wrote: “Last month, you said that reports of the R going up again in countries where relaxations have been introduced was: ‘a very clear warning to us not to proceed too fast or too recklessly.’

“We agree with that but are disappointed that there has so far been no prior consultation or notice of the relaxations to lockdown that have so far been announced.”

The two mayors also said that they are making a commitment to provide more information locally on a weekly basis – the idea of a local “heat map” has been suggested – and called for Public Health England to support this.

They also called on the government to change its guidance so that “express permission” is granted to councils “to decide when it is right to re-open schools to a wider number of students, particularly with regard to more localised information”.

They added: “We would also ask the Government to seek confirmation for SAGE that it is safe to proceed with the much wider reopening of retail outlets on the 15th of June in the North West.





Source link

Posted on

Hornsey and Wood Green constituency results 2019: Labour’s Catherine West holds seat



Voters in Hornsey and Wood Green have gone to the polls to cast their ballots in the General Election.

Boris Johnson called the election to end the Brexit deadlock, the first December election since 1923.

MPs passed legislation approving the poll in October by a decisive margin of 438 votes to 20, seeing Britain’s political parties leap into action for an impassioned five-week campaign period.

The PM said the election beckoned the country to “come together to get Brexit done”, while Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn branded it a “once-in-a-generation chance to transform” the nation.

Hornsey and Wood Green results:

2017 result: Catherine West, Labour

  • Dawn Barnes, Liberal Democrats, 15,884

  • Daniel Corrigan, The Brexit Party, 763

  • Jarelle Francis, Green, 2,192

  • Ed McGuiness, Conservative, 6,829

  • Helen Spiby-Vann, Christian Peoples Alliance, 211

  • Catherine West, Labour, 35,126

To secure a majority and form a government, a party needs to win more than half the seats in the House of Commons – 326. The party that comes second sits on the Commons’ opposition benches, with its leader named ‘leader of the opposition’.

In 2017 the result was a hung parliament, where no single party commands a majority in Parliament. In this situation, several parties can join forces to become a ‘coalition government’, as in 2010 with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, or a single party can form a minority government.

You can read the Evening Standard’s list of candidates standing in every London constituency for the 2019 election here.

 

New: Daily podcast from the Evening Standard

Subscribe to The Leader on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Acast or your chosen podcast provider. New episodes every weekday from 4pm.



Source link

Posted on

West Kelowna RCMP urge high alert after three attempted child lurings



RCMP in West Kelowna have reported a third case of potential child luring in the last week.


The RCMP is warning of “stranger danger” after a third youth in a week was approached by a male driver in West Kelowna and invited to get inside a vehicle.

But because the descriptions of the vehicles and drivers involved differs in each case, there is no evidence the cases are connected at this time, a police spokeswoman said.

“RCMP are reminding parents to reinforce the safety principles surrounding stranger danger with their children,” Const. Lesley Smith of the Mounties’ Kelowna detachment said.

“We’re approaching this case by case. Because of the different vehicles involved we do not feel they are connected at this time.”

The latest warning was issued after a 15-year-old male was asked by a male driver on Sunday evening if he wanted to get in the back of a red late-model mini van in a parking lot in the 1700-block of Ross Road in West Kelowna.

The teen declined and the man drove off. He is described as Caucasian, in his 30s with a full beard and no moustache. He was wearing a black baseball hat.

“West Kelowna RCMP would like to speak with this male in hopes to clarify what events transpired,” Smith said.

Officers at the West Kelowna detachment and with the General Investigation Section continue to investigate, she said. A sketch artist is drawing likenesses based on victim descriptions and the RCMP is looking at any video tape that may help them gain more information.

The first incident occurred on Nov. 29 at 3:50 p.m. when an 11-year-old girl who was walking along Cougar Road in West Kelowna was approached by a lone male in a blue, four-door sedan with rusted rims and squeaky brakes.

The driver pointed to the backseat, encouraging the girl to get inside the car, and she turned and ran home. He was described as tanned, possibly bald, mid-40s, heavy build, white bearded chin and wearing small, circular silver glasses.

The next incident occurred on Dec. 1 at 3:05 p.m. on Pritchard Drive near Barona Beach in West Kelowna.

A 10-year-old girl was offered a ride by a man in a silver or grey vehicle. She said no and ran up the street to where her older sister was waiting. The sister witnessed the vehicle drive away at a high speed.

That driver was described as being about 30, having dark skin with a possible South Asian accent, dark hair, bushy eyebrows, large nose, beard and moustache.

In light of the three incidents involving suspicious vehicles and possible child luring, Smith said the RCMP would like to remind parents and youth to be extremely cautious of their surroundings and stay alert.

[email protected]

twitter.com/gordmcintyre

Related

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email [email protected]





Source link

Posted on

Kanye West Introduced A Quirky Dictionary Game On ‘KUWTK’ And People Are Into It



It seems Kanye West has more than a few words for us.

In a recent episode of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” the rapper introduced a game to his wife, Kim Kardashian, and her two sisters, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian. The game involves several copies of the dictionary, a highlighter and positive thinking.

“Kanye always wants people to be more positive so he came up with this little dictionary game,” Kim says. “We pick a page in the dictionary and everyone has to underline the positive words.”

The segment of the show features the sisters and West highlighting words like “basic” and “barter” and discussing why they are or aren’t “positive” words in their eyes.

As the group discusses certain words, West says that the game “always sparks these kinds of conversations.”

“People get into parenting, this and that,” he says. “It’s a fire board game, like when you’re bored. That’s what board games are.”

When the scene hit Twitter, many people had thoughts about the game and were … intrigued enough to start playing themselves:





Source link