Pakistan will not accept ‘hybrid’ Champions Trophy, says PCB chair

The Pakistan cricket board (PCB) will not stage matches of the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy outside the country if India do not travel for the tournament, chairman Mohsin Naqvi said.

Pakistan, winners of the last Champions Trophy in 2017, will host the tournament between February and March next year. It will be the first ICC event hosted by Pakistan since it shared the 1996 World Cup with India and Sri Lanka.

Due to soured political relations, India have not visited Pakistan since 2008 and the rivals play each other only at multi-team events.

Pakistan also hosted the Asia Cup last year but winners India played all their matches in Sri Lanka under a “hybrid model”.

At the time, India said they had not received permission from their government to tour Pakistan.

On Friday, Indian media reported that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had informed the PCB of their unwillingness to travel to Pakistan and suggested playing India’s matches at a neutral venue.

“In the last two months, the Indian media has been reporting that India isn’t travelling. I discussed this with them and my team, and our stance is clear: they need to give us in writing any objections they may have,” Naqvi told reporters on Friday.

“Until now, no discussion of the hybrid model has happened, nor are we prepared to accept one. The Indian media are reporting it, but no formal communication has reached the PCB… Almost every country wants the Champions Trophy to be played here.

“I remain in touch with several boards, and they’re all looking forward to playing here. I don’t think anyone should make this a political matter. We’ll give every team as many facilities as we can. We’d like to see fans from abroad come for the tournament, too.”

How a couple’s fight led to a misdirected train and £270k losses for Indian Railways

A minor miscommunication over the phone set off a chain of extraordinary events for a railway employee in India, sparking a 12-year saga of legal and personal consequences that ultimately led to a divorce.

The station master’s troubles began when, during a shift in the city of Visakhapatnam in southern Andhra Pradesh state, he engaged in a phone conversation with his wife, reported the Times of India (TOI), without identifying the individual by his name.

Ending the call in frustration, he said, “We’ll talk at home, OK?” But, with his work microphone inadvertently left on, the phrase was overheard by a colleague, who mistook it as clearance to dispatch a freight train down a restricted track into an insurgency-affected territory.

This error, though resulting in no physical accident, breached night-time restrictions and caused substantial financial damage to Indian Railways, reportedly amounting to Rs 30m (£270,000).

Facing suspension for the oversight, the station master saw his already strained marriage further unravel. According to TOI, the marriage had been troubled for years, partly due to his wife’s lingering emotional connection to an ex-partner, which frequently strained relations at home.

Despite attempts to mend their differences, the suspension proved to be a breaking point, prompting him to file for divorce.

In response, his wife filed a counter-complaint under Indian laws, accusing him and his family of cruelty and harassment. She also moved the Supreme Court, requesting that the divorce case be transferred from Visakhapatnam to Durg in the neighbouring state of Chhattisgarh, where her family resided.

Over the next several years, the case went through multiple courts, with her accusations and allegations of infidelity and dowry demands creating a prolonged legal entanglement.

The case reached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which reviewed evidence and deemed the wife’s claims of harassment unfounded.

The division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal highlighted that her ongoing communication with an ex-lover and the argument that led to the costly “OK” incident amounted to mental cruelty towards her husband, reported TOI.

After a thorough review, the High Court overturned an earlier family court ruling, finally granting the station master a divorce.

South Korea president apologises for controversies surrounding wife

South Korean president Yoon Suk-yeol has apologised for controversies surrounding his wife, Kim Keon-hee, which included allegations of her accepting a luxury Dior handbag and involvement in stock manipulation.

Mr Yoon acknowledged his wife’s actions could have been better but argued that her portrayal was overly “demonised” and that some claims were “exaggerated”. Addressing the allegations involving himself and his wife, the South Korean president publicly stated on Thursday that “it’s all my fault”.

However, he voiced his opposition to the opposition parties’ push for a special counsel to investigate the various allegations against the first lady, saying, “that’s not a legal procedure, but political propaganda”.

He told reporters following a televised address on Thursday that his opposition to the special counsel bill “is absolutely not motivated by love for my wife or a desire to defend her”, adding that a “special counsel is an attempt to play politics under the guise of the law”.

He said that the past investigations with hundreds of investigators yielded no indictments and that “the very act of appointing a special counsel to which the president and the ruling party are opposed suggests you can make laws to do anything at all, an idea that’s fundamentally contrary to the constitution”.

He added: “The idea of setting up a big investigative team [under a special counsel] yet again [for a case that has already been investigated] is problematic as well.”

Prior to making these comments, he also addressed the nation from his presidential office in Yongsan in which he apologised to the Korean people over allegations surrounding him and his wife. “I would like to say I’m sorry and offer a heartfelt apology to the Korean people,” he said.

“From the perspective of the Korean people, I’m sure I have many shortcomings. But I’ve always sincerely sought to stand with the people,” Mr Yoon said.

“Despite my efforts, I have given people cause to worry,” the president acknowledged.

“The initiatives I have launched for the livelihood of the nation, and for the future of the Republic of Korea, have sometimes caused inconveniences for the people of Korea. The behaviour of people close to me has also aroused concern,” he said.

“I don’t think this is an occasion for me, as president, to make excuses. This is all my fault – I alone am to blame.”

Mr Yoon issued a public apology after his approval rating dropped below 20 per cent, following a series of scandals involving his wife and the release of phone call recordings suggesting he interfered in the ruling party’s nomination process.

In July this year, South Korea’s first lady was questioned for the first time by prosecutors for around 12 hours over allegations that she accepted a luxury Dior handbag, which exceeded the legal gift value limit for government officials. A 2022 spy camera video showed her receiving the bag from a pastor, fueling political controversy and causing Mr Yoon’s approval rating to plummet below 30 per cent.

Earlier this year in February, in an interview with broadcaster KBS, the president addressed the controversy for the first time. “The video [was made public] at a time when the general election is drawing near, a year after the issue happened, so we can see this as a political manoeuvre,” he said.

“The fact that she was unable to cold-heartedly reject him was the problem, if one can call it a problem, and it is a little regrettable.

“However, it’s not important whether to call it a political manoeuvre or not.

“What’s important is to set clearer boundaries with others to prevent something like this from happening in the future.

“It is very difficult for the president or the president’s wife to treat anyone harshly,” he was quoted as saying by Korea JoongAng Daily.

Emperor penguin lands in Australian town 21,000 miles from icy home

A lone and lost emperor penguin turned up in a western Australian town, nearly 2,100 miles (3300km) away from its home in Antarctica.

The male penguin arrived in Denmark town on Friday.

It was the farthest north the bird had ever been seen.

Aaron Fowler, 37, was one of the first people to spot the bird. He was at the local beach with his friend when he “saw something coming out” of the water.

“It was massive, it was way bigger than a sea bird and we are like, what is that thing coming out of the water? And it kind of had a tail sticking out like a duck,” he was reported as saying by ABC News. “It stood up in the waves and just waddled straight up to us, an emperor penguin, he was probably about a metre high, and he was not shy at all.”

Australia’s Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions said the penguin appeared “malnourished”, but remained “in the care of a trained and registered local wildlife carer”.

Belinda Cannell, a research fellow at the University of Western Australia, said this was the first time an emperor penguin had been so far north. It likely followed a current to Australia.

“What they tend to do is follow certain currents where they are going to find lots of different types of food,” Ms Cannelll explained. “So maybe those currents have just tended to be a little bit further north towards Australia than they normally would.”

Mr Fowler said the bird looked “absolutely flawless”.

He had always seen wildlife in the water but was stunned to see a penguin, he said.

“He tried to do like a slide on his belly, thinking it was snow I guess and just face planted in the sand and stood up and shook all the sand off,” Mr Fowler said of the visitor.

The loss of sea ice in the Antarctic has caused unprecedented breeding failure among emperor penguins, researchers said. The frozen continent has seen four years with the lowest sea ice extent since 2016.

In the past, emperor penguins responded to the loss of sea ice by moving to more stable sites the next year. They usually stayed close to their old homes, however.

Australia outlet claims it was banned in Canada over India interview

An Australian diaspora outlet claimed Canadian authorities blocked its social media pages for airing a press conference where India’s foreign minister criticised the North American country’s handling of the Khalistan issue.

India’s foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal addressed the alleged blocking of The Australia Today and noted that its social media was restricted soon after the outlet aired a joint press conference of S Jaishankar with his Australian counterpart Penny Wong.

“We understand that the social media handles and pages of this particular outlet, which is an important diaspora outlet, have been blocked and are not available for viewers in Canada. This happened just an hour, or a few hours, after this particular handle carried the press conference of S Jaishankar along with Penny Wong. The outlet also had several articles on the visit of the external affairs minister, as also an interview of him. We were surprised. It looks strange to us,” he was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.

“But, nonetheless, what I will say is that these are actions which yet again highlight the hypocrisy of Canada towards freedom of speech.”

Mr Jaishankar concluded an official visit to Australia on 7 November.

However, there is possibly an explanation for why social media users in Canada were unable to access the social media pages of The Australia Today, as several commentators noted on Reddit.

In September last year, Reuters reported that Meta planned to continue blocking news on Facebook and Instagram. Canada had published a draft of the Online News Act, which requires tech giants to pay news publishers, and Meta said it did not address the company’s concerns and that it would stick to blocking news.

The legislation had come after the Canadian media sector sought stricter regulation of tech giants to address their dominance in the online ad market and ensure fairer competition for news outlets.

The Online News Act, part of a global trend to make tech giants pay for news, became law in June and was expected to come into effect in December after the rules were finalised.

“Today, we are confirming that news availability will be ended on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to Online News Act taking effect,” Facebook said in a blog post in June last year.

In order to comply with the new law, the company said, “content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada”.

The Independent has contacted The Australia Today to understand whether the company was aware of the Meta rules in Canada.

Jitarth Jai Bharadwaj, managing editor of The Australia Today, claimed that the restriction on the outlet’s social media after it aired an interview with Mr Jaishankar and his press conference with Ms Wong came “under orders from the Canadian government”. The restriction has been” difficult for our team and those who value free and open journalism”, he added.

The Independent has also contacted Canada’s Office of the Information Commissioner for comment.

Canada and India have seen bilateral relations nosedive since Ottawa accused New Delhi of orchestrating last year’s assassination of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijar in Surrey, British Columbia. The two sides have even expelled each other’s diplomats.

Mr Jaishankar had earlier responded to Canada’s allegation of the Indian government’s involvement in Nijjar’s assassination saying Ottawa was making claims without concrete evidence. He had also condemned Canada’s surveillance of Indian diplomats, calling it unacceptable.

“Let me make three comments. One, Canada has developed a pattern of making allegations without providing specifics. Secondly, when we look at Canada, for us the fact that they are putting our diplomats under surveillance is something which is unacceptable,” he said at a press conference in Canberra, before referring to an attack on a Hindu temple in the North American country, “Third, the incidents, and do look at the videos. I think they will tell you in a way political space today has been given to extremist forces there.”

The Independent has reached out to the Indian foreign ministry for comment about The Australia Today claims.

What Trump’s election victory means for Taiwan and China

When Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020 it took China almost a week to issue an official message to congratulate him, as the outgoing president challenged the election results. This time, as Mr Trump won a convincing victory to seal his return to the White House, the Chinese foreign ministry was far prompter in its response.

President Xi Jinping and president-elect Trump have already spoken over a phone call, according to reports. But the two leaders, who have a history of terse exchanges and strategic rivalry, are yet to announce their first interaction since Mr Trump’s return.

With the change in administration in the US, global leaders are closely watching how the incoming president navigates the China question, as how things play out between the two largest economies will have ripple effects not only for America but for the rest of the world.

“I think China would be slightly relieved if not celebrating Trump’s victory,” Derek Grossman, a senior defence analyst at the RAND think tank, told The Independent.

“The main difference between Harris and Trump is that Trump at least offers the opportunity for some sort of grand strategic bargain. Whereas Harris wouldn’t offer that opportunity at all and would have continued the Biden administration’s approach in the Indo Pacific, which is to strengthen alliances and partnerships to counter China right now,” he said.

More economically vulnerable now, China is bracing for an even bigger trade war as the Republican leader has threatened to slap blanket 60 per cent tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US if he lives up to his campaign promises.

During his first presidency, Mr Trump engaged China in a trade war, imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports, sparking a tit-for-tat chain of reaction. The tariffs to punish China for alleged unfair practices and pressure it to make economic reforms disrupted global markets and led to tensions that went beyond trade, affecting diplomatic relations.

The tariffs, which could decimate the trade between the two countries, would be a significant blow to China’s ailing economy which is suffering from high youth unemployment, a lengthy property slump, and government debt.

“Beijing is particularly concerned about a potential revival of the trade war under Trump, especially given China’s current internal economic challenges, which leave it with less capacity to respond than during Trump’s first term,” Tong Zhao, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The Independent.

Despite fears of renewed tariffs, Beijing believes Mr Trump’s tough trade policies would be deeply unpopular with US allies and partners in Europe and the Asia-Pacific as well, “creating an opportunity for China to strengthen ties with these countries”, he said.

A 60 per cent tariff on Chinese imports could reduce China’s expected economic growth by 2.5 percentage points, or about half, according to a Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) analysis published earlier this year.

“This concern may prompt Beijing to delay or scale back anticipated economic stimulus packages in the short term, conserving policy tools for when Trump assumes office,” Mr Zhao underscored.

Beijing-based commentator Einar Tangen, a senior fellow at Chinese think tank, Taihe Institute, emphasised the financial risks of Mr Trump’s “reshoring” agenda, which aims to revive American manufacturing by bringing industries back from overseas.

He noted that the high cost of domestic production, including “higher wages, development, and logistics costs”, posed a formidable challenge to sustaining such a policy.

“The result will be 8 to 10 trillion dollars added to the US debt pile in a futile effort to hold back the existing economic tide,” he said.

The tariffs on $360bn of Chinese products brought Beijing to the negotiating table after nearly two years. The two countries signed a trade deal in 2020 in which China committed to increase its purchases of American goods and services, enhance protections for intellectual property, and improve market access for American firms.

The so-called landmark Phase One trade deal that would have seen China purchase an additional $200bn worth of American goods over two years did not materialise as Covid-19 pandemic disrupted trade flows.

“Trump has been a little frustrated that the US-China trade deal that he helped create didn’t really take off because of Covid. But then also he received a lot of criticism that it wasn’t really in the US’s interest in terms of what he signed with Beijing,” said Mr Grossman.

“A second trade deal and stronger one is on the table during the second term,” he added. China could be easily brought back to the negotiating table due its weak economic situation, he said.

Taiwan, which China claims as a breakaway province, remains another major issue Beijing will need to negotiate with the Trump government when it assumes power.

For decades, Washington has cautiously followed a bipartisan policy of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan to deter China from invading. The US is Taiwan’s most important arms supplier and the self governing island has closely watched the election play out.

California-based Grossman said Mr Trump would be expected to continue the Indo-Pacific strategy laid out under his first administration – which was built upon rather than scrapped under the Biden administration – to strengthen alliances with countries like Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia as part of a broader strategy to counterbalance China’s regional influence.

But Mr Trump’s transactional approach to relationships with countries and territories that rely on the US military for their defence will raise concern in the region at a time when the threat of aggressive moves by China has never been greater.

On the campaign trail, Mr Trump said “Taiwan should pay us for defence” as America has been “no different than an insurance company”.

“I worry about Taiwan, I worry about our position in the South China Sea and our support to allies and partners because this potentially going a radical departure from what we’ve seen across the last several decades,” Mr Grossman said.

Beijing would be expected to “maintain red lines around its security and territorial integrity” regardless of who won the US election, Mr Tangen suggested, while China is likely to take a more measured approach in response to Trump tariffs than in his first administration.

Mr Xi’s congratulatory message may have been quicker this time round but it was also noticeably more subdued than his earlier one to Mr Trump in November 2016. He urged Washington and Beijing to find the “right way to get along in the new era” to benefit both countries and the wider world.

“History teaches that China and the United States gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation,” Mr Xi said, according to state media Xinhua, noting that “a stable, sound and sustainable China-US relationship serves the two countries’ shared interests”.

Having previously managed relations with Mr Trump during his first term, this scenario is not entirely uncharted territory for Taiwan, Sana Hashmi, a Taipei-based foreign relations expert, says. But it is Mr Trump’s transactional approach that worries Taipei leaders.

“Taiwan has more reason to be concerned in this regard, especially considering Biden’s assertions about defending Taiwan, which were later walked back by the White House – but they still made an impact,” she says.

“Trump, on the other hand, did not make such commitments; instead, he accused Taiwan of taking advantage of the US semiconductor industry.”

If Trump shows weaker commitment to defending Taiwan than his predecessor, Mr Zhao says Beijing could seek greater concessions from Washington on the issue, using a mix of “positive incentives and coercive pressure” to push the US to scale back its military and political support for the island.

New owner of Matthew Perry’s home says she will honour his legacy

Real estate consultant Anita Verma-Lallian, who bought Matthew Perry’s former home in Los Angeles, has opened up about her reasons for purchasing it and how she plans to honour the legacy of its former owner.

Verma-Lallian, who also founded a film production company, posted photos on social media showing her in the house, holding a traditional Hindu blessing ceremony for a new property.

“The moment I walked into the home, I absolutely fell in love with the features, especially the view of the Pacific Ocean. We knew it was ‘the one’ and decided to write an offer on it immediately,” she wrote.

“As a real estate developer myself, I believe every property has a history that we may or may not know about, and every home carries the energy that the current owner brings to it.  I am Hindu, and it’s customary to do a blessing and prayer anytime you buy a new home.”

Verma-Lallian explained that her decision to buy the house had nothing to do with who lived in it but she planned to retain some of the original features of the house.

“We chose to honour the positive aspects of the previous owner’s life, his immense talent, and all the joy he brought to so many people. The decision to purchase the home had nothing to do with the previous owner, just our love of the home,” she said.

“We do plan to keep some of the design elements. The batman logo in the pool is definitely staying.”

Perry died on 28 October 2023, aged 54 from the “acute effects of Ketamine” after taking the drug in unsupervised doses. An investigation was launched into his death with three arrests made, including of a doctor who has pleaded guilty to supplying the star with the fatal final quantity.

The 3,500sqft four-bedroom mid-century home built in 1965 was purchased by Perry in 2020 for $6m, according to The New York Times. He went on to do extensive renovations on the property, including the addition of an outdoor pool.

A Batman fan, Perry referred to himself as Mattman and shared photos of Batman-themed decor in his house.

Verma-Lallian purchased the house off-market for $8.55m and said she intended to use it as a vacation home.

Perry owned several homes over the course of his career as one of television’s highest-paid stars. While closing on his Palisades property, he also listed a beach house in Malibu for $14.95m. The house was sold in 2021 for $13.1m after the asking price was lowered twice.

He also sold his 9,300sqft penthouse in Los Angeles that same year for $21.6m, having bought the property in 2017 for $20m.

On the anniversary of the actor’s death last month, his <em>Friends</em> co-star Jennifer Aniston shared a touching tribute. Alongside a final image of Perry laughing, she shared a photo of her hugging the star in the early days of their career, one from them on the set of the record-breaking sitcom, and one of the cast in a group hug.

She captioned the post simply, writing “One year” with a bandaged heart emoji and a flying dove. She also tagged the Matthew Perry Foundation in the post. The foundation was set up in the days after the actor’s death by his former longtime publicist Lisa Kasteler and manager Dough Chapin.

Why are women discussing the ‘4B movement’ after Trump’s election win?

The South Korean 4B movement has seen a spike in interest amid the results from the 2024 US presidential election.

On Wednesday (November 6) morning, Republican candidate Donald Trump claimed victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. Throughout his 2024 reelection campaign, the former president has celebrated the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion. It was also reproductive rights that propelled many women to the polls on Election Day as Missouri became the first state to undo a restrictive abortion ban.

However, after Trump declared victory over Democratic nominee Harris, some Americans couldn’t help but say they felt reaffirmed in their belief that most of the United States would rather anyone else as president than a woman. Perhaps that’s why interest in South Korea’s 4B movement – a movement against patriarchy – has spiked in the US just hours after Trump’s win.

“American women, looks like it’s time to get influenced by Korea’s 4B movement,” one woman wrote on X/Twitter.

“American women, it’s time to learn from the Koreans and adopt the 4B movement,” another user echoed, while a third person said: “The women in South Korea are doing it. It’s time we join them. Men will NOT be rewarded, nor have access to our bodies.”

The 4B movement, which reportedly originated in 2019, stands for four Korean words beginning with “bi” or “no” in English: bihon means no heterosexual marriage; bichulsan, no childbirth; biyeonae, no dating; and bisekseu, no heterosexual sexual relationships. Supporters of the women-led movement refuse to date, marry, have sex or have children with men – effectively boycotting a system they feel perpetuates gender inequity.

Members of the 4B movement view marriage as an existential threat to women, and their concerns are well-founded. Much like in the US, South Korean women are also subjected to a gender pay gap. While American women typically earn 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, South Korean women earn 31 percent less than men – the highest gender pay gap in democratic countries. A 2018 report revealed that in the past nine years, at least 824 women had been killed and 602 more put at risk of death due to intimate partner violence (IPV). A 2021 study further found that one in three Korean women have experienced domestic violence, with intimate partners responsible for 46 percent of these cases.

In response, women within the 4B movement have chosen to disengage from traditional relationships altogether, asserting that practicing “bihon” is the only path to autonomy. “Practicing bihon means you’re eliminating the risks that come from heterosexual marriage or dating,” Busan native Yeowon explained to The Cut.

It’s unclear how widespread the 4B movement is given its largely anonymous and offline nature, and it’s origins are just as nebulous. However, scholars credit its rise with the growing education gap between men and women in South Korea. Similar to the gender education gap in the US, in which women make up 59.5 percent of all college students, Korean women surpassed men in college enrollment rates as of 2013. Today, nearly three-fourths of Korean women pursue higher education, compared with less than two-thirds of men.

This shift fueled growing tension between men and women, with disgruntled groups of men coining the term “kimchinyeo,” or “kimchee women,” to stereotype college-educated women as “selfish, vain, and exploitative of their partners,” feminist scholar Euisol Jeong explained in her research on “troll feminism.”

These cultural attitudes echo trends in the US, where men are grappling with shifting gender roles. Feeling the pressure of fewer blue-collar jobs and diminishing educational advantages, many men are drawn to vote for conservative candidates like Trump, who promise a return to traditional values that, for some, prioritize men’s interests at the expense of women’s autonomy.

“Masculinity is in flux,” anthropologist Treena Orchard recently told The Independent in an interview about the gender political gap. “Men are feeling constrained, and it’s like they might feel like they have fewer options in terms of how to do manhood, how to think about their place in the world, and they feel devalued.”

For many women in South Korea, the 4B movement isn’t merely symbolic – it’s a social stance aimed at reclaiming control over their lives, bodies, and futures in response to a system they feel is becoming increasingly hostile.

In the wake of the election – which has seen women’s rights, such as reproductive autonomy, under threat – bringing the 4B movement to the US could be a radical response. However, the surge of American interest in the 4B movement underscores a shared frustration over what many see as a rollback of women’s rights and freedoms, especially as conservative values gain ground among male voters.

With the movement gaining momentum online, one question looms: Will American women rally around it, or perhaps create their own version, as a form of protest against Trump’s second presidential term in the White House?