PERSPECTA

News from every angle

Results for “Minors

117 stories found

Youth journalists challenge ban on minors registering media outlets
PoliticsKorea Herald1d ago

Youth journalists challenge ban on minors registering media outlets

Students braved near-freezing temperatures outside Seoul's Constitutional Court on Tuesday to call for legal recognition of youth-led media and to challenge legal provisions they say restrict press freedoms. "We had to stand up against oppression from the school with our bare hands," said Moon Sung-ho, a 15-year-old student at Yeonshin Middle School and editor-in-chief of Tokipul, an independent student newspaper. "Registering our newspaper as an official media outlet would protect us under the

Protesters Released After Democratic Party Rally in Albania
Politicsbalkan-web1d ago

Protesters Released After Democratic Party Rally in Albania

All individuals detained in connection with the tensions at the Democratic Party protest on February 20, which involved molotov cocktails and fireworks, have been released, including three minors who were placed under 'obligation to appear' security measures.

Homeless Children Crisis Worsens in Brussels
Politicsirozhlas2d ago

Homeless Children Crisis Worsens in Brussels

The number of homeless children in Brussels is increasing, with nearly 1,700 minors among the almost 10,000 homeless individuals in the Belgian capital in 2024. Belgian officials are warning about the deteriorating situation.

2 More High-Profile Transgender Surgery Cases Head To Trial
HealthFox Newszerohedge7d ago2 sources

2 More High-Profile Transgender Surgery Cases Head To Trial

2 More High-Profile Transgender Surgery Cases Head To Trial Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Two high-profile “detransitioner” cases involving young women whose bodies were irrevocably altered as teens by transgender surgery are expected to go to trial in early 2027. Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old woman who regrets surgically removing her breasts, holds testosterone medication used for transgender patients, in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times Chloe Cole, who drew national attention after speaking out against subjecting children to gender-reassignment procedures such as hormones and surgeries, has an April 5, 2027, trial date, according to Mark Trammell, CEO of the Center for American Liberty, which represents several detransitioners. ​Cole and others, known as detransitioners, stopped or reversed a medical gender transition that they started earlier. ​She sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and other health care providers in California after receiving life-altering hormones and a double mastectomy when she was 15. ​“Kaiser has done everything in its power to keep Chloe out of a courtroom and to ensure that members of the press are not in the gallery,” Trammell told The Epoch Times. ​For Cole, getting a trial date signifies a victory after years of legal wrangling and delays, she told The Epoch Times via text. “After years of fighting for the voices of my generation to be heard, I’ve been given a date for trial. Every victim, every family who spoke up, every step in the culture, all led to this moment,” she said. ​“I’ve waited for my day in court, not just for my sake, but for that of every child who should’ve been protected from irreversible harm.” Kaiser Foundation Hospitals did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit moving forward. However, the medical group told local news outlets in 2023 that it followed medical standards of “gender-affirming care.” ​Trammell also represents Luka Hein, whose case is expected to head to trial in early 2027. ​Hein’s Nebraska case names the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians, the Nebraska Medical Center, doctors, therapists, and others as defendants. Like others, Hein had both breasts removed in 2018, when she was 16, as the first step in her “gender-affirming care,” according to the lawsuit. Building Momentum Both medical malpractice cases could solidify gains made in the landmark Fox Varian v. Kenneth Einhorn case, which went to trial in New York last month. It marked the first time that a detransitioner case received a jury verdict. ​The Jan. 30 verdict held a surgeon and psychologist liable for malpractice surrounding the double mastectomy that Fox Varian received when she was 16. The jury found her psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, and plastic surgeon, Dr. Simon Chin, liable for failing to communicate as required about Varian’s condition. One example was laid out in an October 2019 letter that Einhorn wrote to Chin in support of Varian’s surgery, which contained errors and omitted coexisting mental issues, including autism and depression. Chloe Cole stands near her home in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times The New York jury awarded Varian $2 million—$1.6 million for pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. ​The Fox verdict sent shockwaves through the gender medicine industry, while offering hope for other detransitioners. ​Trammell said that while medical negligence lawsuits aren’t new, those involving transgender medicine are. ​“How do you put a price tag on a young woman having her breasts amputated and potentially never being able to have a child?” he asked. ​The hope is that detransitioners will now see that they can win a legal victory. ​“I look at that as a tremendous, tremendous victory, not just for Fox Varian, but for other detransitioners who are maybe thinking about filing lawsuits,” he said. Chloe Cole holds a childhood photo in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times Trammell said that the success of medical negligence cases depends on establishing that doctors and hospitals failed to meet the standard of care. That’s why reviews of gender medicine, such as the recent one by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are important, he said. ​That federal report rejected medical interventions for children with gender dysphoria, recommending therapy instead. ​The HHS report noted that evidence underpinning the alleged benefits of medical interventions in pediatric gender dysphoria was “very uncertain.” ​Trammell said the pediatric gender industry appears to be based more on politics than science. ​He pointed to European countries’ changing of their policies after studies showed problems with medical interventions for childhood gender dysphoria. The United States has lagged behind Europe in adjusting its approach to pediatric gender medicine, Trammell said. ​“It’s taken the U.S., unfortunately, years to even begin to catch up. And even still, there’s a ton of money and political power behind it,” he said. Tools for Justice ​Civil lawsuits can be tools for changing behavior on the market level, and the landmark Big Tobacco lawsuit settlement in 1998 is a case in point, Trammell said. ​“I think these cases uniquely present the opportunity to put an end to this barbaric industry because ... it’s driven by money and power,” he said. When doctors, hospitals, and insurers become financially liable for pediatric gender procedures, it will have a chilling effect, Trammell said. Chloe Cole speaks in support of the Protect Children's Innocence Act as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) looks on outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 20, 2022. Terri Wu/The Epoch Times ​Trammell said states have already helped protect vulnerable children by passing laws banning transgender-related hormone treatments and surgery for minors. However, state lawmakers could have a bigger impact by creating a carve-out on the statute of limitations for medical malpractice. In many states, lawsuits must be filed within two years of the alleged malpractice, but it can take children much longer to realize the harm they suffered. In Texas, 60 lawmakers signed a letter supporting a detransitioner’s case, heard on Feb. 11 by the Texas Supreme Court, that was originally dismissed based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The state lawmakers vowed to support legislation next year to extend the statute of limitations for detransitioners. Soren Aldaco filed a lawsuit in 2023 asking for more than $1 million in damages, claiming that doctors pressured her into gender-reassignment procedures, gave her “life-altering” hormones at 17, and later “botched” a double mastectomy. Trammell said that at the very least, the statute of limitations on cases involving minors shouldn’t start until they turn 18. “They should have five to 10 years at least to be able to make those decisions for things that happen to them as 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds,” he said. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 18:25

Stabbed 24 times in 30 seconds: 2 minors storm snooker club, hack Class 10 boy
WorldTimes of India2d ago

Stabbed 24 times in 30 seconds: 2 minors storm snooker club, hack Class 10 boy

Two 16-year-old boys allegedly attacked another 16-year-old with a large knife at a pool club in Teela Jamalpura, inflicting over two dozen blows. The incident, reportedly stemming from an old dispute where the victim had previously assaulted the accused, occurred on February 15. Police have registered a case against the minor assailants.

Jeffrey Epstein's Extensive Network Revealed in Public Documents
Worldwsjtimes-ukNHK World+2Daily Maverickprotothema-en5d ago5 sources

Jeffrey Epstein's Extensive Network Revealed in Public Documents

Publicly released documents related to American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in custody after being charged with sexual abuse of minors, have revealed his extensive network, causing a global ripple effect.

When Both Sides Go Quiet
PoliticsFox NewsYahoozerohedge+1Tehran Times7d ago4 sources

When Both Sides Go Quiet

When Both Sides Go Quiet Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance There is a political instinct that I’ve developed over the last few decade or so: when both parties are shouting, it’s business as usual. When both parties go quiet, pay attention, because something ugly is probably getting passed or covered up, and the American taxpayer is likely footing the bill of consequences. Few public controversies in recent memory have generated as much bipartisan distrust as the handling of the Epstein files. Republicans accused Democrats of failing to pursue full transparency while President Biden was in office. Now Democrats accuse Republicans of withholding or slow-walking the release of the complete records. The blame shifts with political control, but the underlying fact pattern remains the same: both parties have figures of influence whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein’s orbit. That reality complicates the politics of accountability and fuels public suspicion that neither side is entirely comfortable with full disclosure. What should have been a straightforward matter of transparency, identifying networks of power, influence, and possible criminal complicity, has instead unfolded as a slow humiliating drip of redactions, procedural delays, partial disclosures and cagey congressional testimony. Each release seems to raise more questions than it resolves. These questions revolve around sex trafficking, exploitation, abuse of minors, coercion and manipulation, elite complicity, obstruction of justice, etc. But the deeper damage taking place now is not only about the crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is about institutional response. If only one political party had meaningful exposure to the scandal, the other would likely have been far more relentless in demanding transparency. But this is different. Despite Democrats harping on the files now, they were quiet in the years prior to Trump’s second term and, because Epstein’s connections span media, finance, academia, and politics, the discomfort still appears bipartisan. And that is precisely what unsettles me. When both political parties fail to press aggressively on something meaningful, especially something morally explosive, it often suggests that the issue cuts deeper than surface narratives allow. Bipartisan hesitation can signal overlapping vulnerability. Silence across the aisle is rarely accidental. The horror here is not just what may have occurred in private circles of power, but the perception that the institutions tasked with accountability are reluctant to fully illuminate it. Justice delayed in cases involving elites feels less like procedural caution and more like reputational risk management. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is corrosive. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation after new emails with Epstein came to light, prompting internal pressure at the firm. British political figure Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into his ties with Epstein. In Norway, parliament has launched an external inquiry into prominent diplomats for their connections to Epstein, and police are investigating corruption allegations against former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and others. 🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever Across Europe, these disclosures have triggered formal probes, resignations, and institutional reviews that contrast sharply with the relative lack of accountability for high-profile figures in the United States, where calls for investigations and resignations have largely stalled. I mean, is Les Wexner really allowed to just walk around free at this point? How can that be possible? How are Kimbal Musk and Elon Musk allowed to remain on Tesla’s board? Why isn’t Bill Gates being hauled in front of congress? I have long argued that Americans should apply the same “when both parties agree, the American public is getting screwed” scrutiny to monetary policy for a similar reason. It is one of the few areas where both major political parties display remarkable convergence. While they wage visible battles over cultural issues and tax rates, they tend to align on central banking frameworks, large scale liquidity interventions, and deficit tolerance. Like other cover-ups, that alignment deserves examination. Monetary policy operates largely outside daily partisan warfare, yet it shapes purchasing power, asset prices, debt burdens, and wealth distribution. When balance sheets expand aggressively and markets are repeatedly stabilized during downturns, the effects are uneven. Asset holders often benefit first and most. Meanwhile, wage earners experience the lagging side effects such as inflationary pressure, higher living costs, and diminished purchasing power. Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory argue that sovereign currency systems provide more fiscal flexibility than traditionally assumed. Critics counter that, in practice, repeated interventions risk entrenching a cycle in which gains are privatized and losses are socialized. When markets rise, the wealth effect accrues to those with substantial exposure. When markets falter, public backstops prevent collapse. The middle class absorbs the inflationary residue. And the wealth gap widens: The structural similarity matters. When both parties avoid aggressive debate on a policy that materially burdens the average American, it raises the same instinctive question of what incentives are being protected. Monetary policy may not carry the visceral grotesqueness of the Epstein scandal, but it carries long term economic consequences that most Americans don’t know they are bearing, and don’t understand that they are being lied to about. The comparison is not moral equivalence. It is structural parallel. In one case, alleged networks of power may be shielded by mutual hesitation. In the other, a financial architecture persists with limited democratic scrutiny because challenging it would destabilize shared political comfort. In both cases, bipartisan alignment dampens confrontation. Two forms of silence. Two different domains. Both revealing. Foreign policy, particularly the authorization and funding of wars, has often followed a similar pattern. While domestic issues produce loud partisan divides, military interventions abroad frequently pass with overwhelming support from leadership in both parties. Public debate may flare at the margins, but institutional consensus tends to solidify quickly once action begins. History shows that major military engagements, from post 9/11 authorizations to prolonged overseas conflicts, have often been backed by broad congressional majorities. The initial votes are decisive. The funding continues year after year. Only later, when costs mount and public opinion shifts, does meaningful dissent emerge. By then, strategic commitments and financial obligations are deeply entrenched. Again, the pattern is not about moral equivalence between policy domains. It is about incentives. When both political parties converge quickly on matters involving immense money, immense power, or immense liability, scrutiny tends to narrow rather than widen. And when scrutiny narrows at the highest levels, the public’s role shifts from participant to spectator. When both political parties fail to address something meaningful, when they close ranks instead of competing for exposure, the public should not assume the issue is trivial. More often, it suggests the truth behind the surface may be larger and more consequential than advertised. Democracies depend not just on disagreement, but on adversarial pressure. When that pressure disappears, citizens are right to lean in, not tune out. When both sides go quiet, the story is rarely over. As the Epstein files are showing, it may simply run far deeper than we are being shown. Now read: Today's Epstein’s Records Destroy Official Narratives Our Liquidity Addiction Continues Do DOJ Docs Show Epstein Death Notice A Day Early? The Hijacking Of Bitcoin: Epstein’s Hidden Network Why America’s Two-Party System Will Never Threaten the True Political Elites QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. I am an investor in Mark’s fund. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 14:00

Spain to Ban Energy Drink Sales to Minors
Healthjutarnji-listla-vanguardia2h ago2 sources

Spain to Ban Energy Drink Sales to Minors

Spain's consumer ministry plans to prohibit the sale of energy drinks to individuals under 16, with an extended ban for those under 18 for high-caffeine beverages.

Justice for all? The Epstein files and the arrest of former prince Andrew
PoliticsNYTwsjNPR+6times-ukSCMPFrance 24Business InsiderThe Independenttmz5d ago9 sources

Justice for all? The Epstein files and the arrest of former prince Andrew

Justice can be slow… and then suddenly, it’s swift. Two months to the day after the US justice department first started releasing the Epstein Files the arrest of King Charles’ brother: Andrew had already been stripped of his titles over allegations of relations with sex trafficked minors. Now he’s accused of leaking state secrets to the disgraced financier from the time when his late mother had pushed for his appointment as trade envoy.

Better Know Your Blue Jays 40-man: Tommy Nance
SportYahoo6d ago

Better Know Your Blue Jays 40-man: Tommy Nance

Tommy Nancy is a 34-year-old (35 in March), right-handed reliever, from Long Beach, California. He was undrafted (is that a word?), and signed as an amateur free agent in 2016 by the Cubs, after playing in an independent league in 2015. He had a rather slow climb up the minors. When you are undrafted, you […]