Connect with us

Published

on

Hundreds of Air Force service members in dress blue uniforms filed into a Georgia megachurch Friday for the funeral of Roger Fortson, 23, a senior airman who was shot and killed by an Okaloosa County sheriff’s deputy earlier this month after he answered the door to his apartment holding a gun at his side.

Fortson’s dramatic funeral, which included a video message from Rev. Al Sharpton, was a stark reminder of the deadly incoherence between America’s Second Amendment culture and hypervigilant police training and tactics.

Fortson was fatally shot on May 3 after sheriff’s deputies arrived at his apartment complex in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, responding to a call about an alleged domestic disturbance.

Body camera footage released by the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office shows the deputy knocked on Fortson’s door and announced himself several times. Fortson eventually opened the door, holding a handgun at his side. The officer said “step back” and began firing. Fortson only had time to raise his empty hand, palm outward. Three to four seconds elapsed between Fortson opening the door and the deputy firing six rounds at him.

Ben Crump, a prominent civil rights attorney who is representing Fortson’s family, said in a recent press conference that police went to the wrong door. A radio dispatcher told deputies that the call was “fourth-party information from the front desk at the leasing office,” and body camera footage showed an unidentified woman telling deputies she was “not sure” which door the disturbance came from before directing them to Fortson’s apartment. Fortson’s family says he legally owned the gun, had no criminal record, and was home alone at the time of the incident.

“We’ve got to call it as it isRoger died of murder,” Rev. Jamal Bryant said at Fortson’s funeral. “He died of stone-cold murder. And somebody has got to be held accountable. Roger was better to America than America was to Roger.”

The Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office initially framed the fatal shooting as self-defense.

“Hearing sounds of a disturbance, he reacted in self defense after he encountered a 23-year old man armed with a gun and after the deputy had identified himself as law enforcement,” a May 4 statement from the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office read.

The two narratives illustrate a problem Reason has written about time and time again: The government insists that its citizens have a Second Amendment right to own guns and defend their homes with them, but it also insists that it’s reasonable for police to respond with deadly force when they’re startled by the sight of a gun, or what could be a gun but might be a harmless object, or the knowledge that a gun is nearby, as in the case of Philando Castile.

Last year police in Farmington, New Mexico, fatally shot a man while responding to a domestic disturbance call at the wrong house, after the man showed up at the door holding a gun.

In 2022, Florida resident Corey Marioneaux Jr. was charged with attempted murder of a police officer for shooting a gun at SWAT team officers who had just broken through his front door with a battering ram at 5 a.m. The charges against Marioneaux were later dropped, and an internal review found no wrongdoing on the part of the police eithera simple misunderstanding that could have killed someone.

That same year, a Minneapolis Police Department officer shot and killed 22-year-old Amir Locke during the execution of a no-knock raid. Locke, who was not named in the search warrant, appeared to be asleep under a blanket on a couch. As police entered the room, he put his hand on the barrel of a handgun, and an officer shot him three times.

In 2006, former Reason writer Radley Balko detailed the case of Cory Maye , a Mississippi man sentenced to death for fatally shooting a police officer during a no-knock drug raid.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis relentlessly brags about “Free Florida,” a supposed refuge from liberal busybodies, where things like owning a gun and not eating vat-grown meat are sacred. The title of his book was in fact The Courage to Be Free. But DeSantis has no courage when it comes to the police. His only priority is giving law enforcement more privileges and insulation from civilian accountability.

Roger Fortson lived in this very same Florida. Now his name will be added to the long list of people who were killed for doing something they were assured was their right as free citizens of the United States.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Business

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

Published

on

By

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

The UK’s biggest water supplier has been dealt another blow as the regulator decided to reduce its income.

Thames Water, which supplies 16 million people in England, has been told by the watchdog Ofwat its revenues will be cut by more than £187m.

It comes as the utility struggles under a £17.6bn debt pile and the government has lined up insolvency practitioners for its potential collapse.

Money blog: Nine-year-old set up Christmas tree business to pay for university

Overall, water firms face a sector-wide revenue reduction of nearly £309m as a result of Ofwat’s determination. Thames Water’s £187.1m cut is the largest revenue reduction.

This will take effect from next year and up to 2030 as part of water companies’ regulator-approved five-year spending and investment plans.

The downward revenue revision has been made as Ofwat believes the companies will perform better than first thought and therefore require less money.

More on Thames Water

Better financial performance is ultimately good news for customers.

The change published on Wednesday is a technical update; the initial revenue projections published in December 2024 were based on projected financial performance but after financial results were published in the summer and Ofwat was able to apply these figures.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?

Thames Water and industry body Water UK have been contacted for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Trending