Read the daily news to learn English

How a Starbucks marketing stunt spiralled into mass boycotts in South Korea

It was a PR nightmare: customers smashing Starbucks branded tumblers and mugs as fans deleted loyalty apps and cashed out prepaid balances. Amid the uproar, government ministries cut ties with the coffee chain and apology notices were pasted on Starbucks stores across South Korea. The initial shock may have passed, but the anger remains. Hours after launching a marketing campaign called “Tank Day” for its new “Tank” coffee tumbler range on 18 May, Starbucks Korea found itself at the centre of a cultural storm that would force a billionaire chairman to apologise on national television,and see a chief executive sacked. The controversy reverberated all the way to the South Korean president’s office. Starbucks’ Tank Series tumblers and discount campaign was designed to promote “spacious volume” for bigger coffees. But the specific date of the promotion’s launch, and its imagery and wording, reopened the painful wounds of a 46-year-old massacre in South Korea and dictatorship-era torture scandal. Starbucks cancelled the promotion hours after it launched, and its CEO, Son Jeong-hyun, was fired that same day. But it was too late. The anger had already spread, with videos of people smashing the Starbucks mugs and tumblers circulated on social media. Protests were held outside stores and people were incensed Starbucks had launched a tumbler called “tank” on 18 May, and that the coffee chain was declaring it “Tank Day”. Known locally as 5/18, the 18th of May is the anniversary of a 1980 massacre in Gwangju. Over 10 violent days, paratroopers crushed pro-democracy protests against military strongman Chun Doo-hwan. Victims’ groups say hundreds were killed. There was also a problem with a slogan the Starbuck campaign used: “thwack on the desk”. It echoed a notorious cover story used by police after the 1987 torture death of student activist Park Jong-chul. Authorities at the time initially claimed Park died because an officer had used his fist to “hit the desk with a thwack”. Marketers chose the slogan after consulting an AI tool, looking for suggestions, Shinsegae Group said. It turned out some managers who approved the campaign never opened the email attachments showing the marketing material. In a statement issued before his dismissal, Son apologised and pledged company-wide education on historical awareness and ethics. On 19 May, Chung Yong-jin, the billionaire chair of Shinsegae Group, swiftly issued a written apology. Chung’s Shinsegae Group is the parent company behind Starbucks Korea, operating the chain under licence from the Starbucks Corporation. But that failed to quell the outrage. Starbucks is especially popular in South Korea, its third-largest market globally, with more than 2,100 stores nationwide. Following the controversy, card payment volumes at Starbucks stores plunged 26% in a week, according to market data, with May card payments down 10% on the previous month. And customers began demanding refunds from an estimated 400bn won ($260m) held in Starbucks prepaid cards. The musical actor Jung Min-chan stepped down from his production after posting a photograph of himself inside a Starbucks drew public backlash. In attempt to stem the rising anger, Chung issued another apology, on 26 May, this time bowing three times at a televised press conference. “I take it very seriously the fact that many people felt deep pain and anger because of Starbucks Korea’s inappropriate marketing campaign,” he said. Bereaved families and 5/18 organisations rejected Chung’s apology. Park Jong-chul’s elder brother wrote to police, demanding Chung and the former CEO, Son, be charged for insulting the memory of victims. Chung and Son have since been booked as criminal suspects by police. Cho Youngho, a political scientist at Sogang University, says attitudes towards the Gwangju Uprising mirrored the deepest divisions in South Korean society. “For people who supported democratisation in the 1980s and 1990s, now in their forties and fifties, the idea of commercialising, mocking or trivialising 5/18 is simply unacceptable.” The controversy has also turned political. Government agencies stopped ordering Starbucks gift cards and the defence ministry suspended a partnership with the chain. The Democratic party’s leader, Jung Chung-rae, wanted Chung to kneel before the nation in atonement. It did not take long before reverberations reached South Korea’s president Lee Jae Myung, who condemned those responsible as “low-class peddlers”. He raised the prospect of shutting down Ilbe, a far-right online community, similar to 4chan, where mocking of Gwangju victims is common. Far-right groups have kept alive a decades-old, discredited state narrative that the Gwangju protesters were North Korean sympathisers, a claim the supreme court in February ruled was defamatory. Those debates have acquired renewed urgency since Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed declaration of martial law in 2024, which revived public discussion of authoritarianism and state violence. Shinsegae’s investigation found no evidence the Starbucks campaign was deliberate, and Starbucks Korea asked customers to refrain from directing their anger at frontline shop staff. Starbucks Corporation, headquartered in Seattle, which licenses the brand but holds no equity in the Korean operation, said it was “deeply sorry for an unacceptable marketing incident.” “While unintentional, this should never have happened. We recognize the deep pain and offense this has caused, particularly to those who honor the victims, their families, and all who contributed to Korea’s democratization,” it said in a statement. The company said it was reviewing internal review standards and training to ensure the incident was not repeated. “We sincerely apologize to the people of Gwangju, to those impacted by this tragedy, and to our customers and communities.” Prof Cho, who has studied the national struggle over 5/18, said the public reaction reflected more than a marketing failure. “Companies today are expected to respect human dignity and social norms,” he said, adding that the controversy was unlikely to fade soon.

Chagossians urge UK to complete islands’ handover to Mauritius

A Chagossian delegation visiting the UK has urged parliamentarians to complete stalled legislation to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which they say has been “hijacked within the halls” of UK politics. The six-person contingent from the Chagos Refugees Group expressed their full support for the UK to conclude an agreement after the government was forced to shelve legislation when the US dropped support for the agreement. “It’s not a question of sovereignty for us, the most important is our rights,” the delegation leader, Louis Olivier Bancoult, told a room full of Chagossians, some native-born, gathered in West Sussex on Friday. “There is not a real will for the British government to find a solution for our people. We need to find a way,” he added. “We’re still suffering and our position is clear, we have the right to live in our birthplace.” In 1996, Bancoult started a legal battle against the UK government and has continued to fight for their return after his family was uprooted in 1965 and unable to return after travelling to Mauritius for his sister’s illness. The delegation has also said the current legal restrictions under the British Indian Ocean Territory regime prohibit resettlement, and criticised far-right UK leaders and press over narratives claiming they are a “pure, isolated race” with no ties to Mauritius, and that they oppose a negotiated settlement. “We have watched with profound concern as the sacred issue of our human rights has been hijacked within the halls of UK politics,” said Bancoult in a parliamentary briefing statement. Delegation member Rosemonde Bertin was deported to Mauritius in 1972 and was the last person to give birth on Chagos Islands, she told the room. She had the opportunity to visit the islands with permission, and regretted how she was unable to spend more than a day in her birthplace. “How can it be that I was born in Chagos, but I cannot go there without permission and other people, third and fourth generation can go and stay there?” she said in creole. Other individuals present, who left as children, spoke of the desire to return to the islands, of their wishes to die in their birthplaces and called for reparations from the British government. Also in attendance was Liseby Elysé, who when forced to leave the islands in 1973, suffered a pregnancy loss at four months. “[We] expect nothing more than justice for the hardship that we have suffered all these years,” said 71-year-old Joseph Bertrand, who lives in the UK after being forcibly moved to Mauritius at the age of 12. “We don’t want heritage visits,” he said. “We want to go there, we want to live there.” The delegation has met parliamentarians including Jeremy Corbyn and David Alton, the chair of the joint committee on human rights, who has long supported the Chagossians in returning to their homeland. “I emphasised my longstanding personal support for their right to return permanently to their homeland where they should be free to determine their own future,” said Lord Alton. Corbyn said it was clear in all aspects of international law that the islands “must” be part of Mauritius, as per an international court of justice ruling. In 2019 an advisory opinion by the ICJ, endorsed by the UN general assembly, found the UK in breach of international law by seeking to maintain its claim to the archipelago. “This has been dragged through the courts for the past 30 years,” said Corbyn. “It’s time the Tory party and Reform stopped fiddling around with some colonial inheritance, which simply doesn’t exist.”

Israel strikes southern Lebanon after ordering evacuations of nine villages

Thousands fled their homes after Israel issued forced evacuation orders for nine villages in southern Lebanon before strikes that killed six people on Friday, a day after the Hezbollah militant group rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Hundreds of families left Anqoun, a village hosting at least 2,500 displaced people, after the Israeli military said it would soon operate against what it said were Hezbollah targets there, ordering residents to leave. The roads leading to Sidon, the closest large city, were choked with cars as families sought shelter. The Israeli military carried out airstrikes across wide areas of south Lebanon, including Anqoun, with drone strikes hitting cars in the Nabatieh area while airstrikes and artillery pounded the town of Kfar Tebnit. The town is adjacent to Beaufort Castle, which Israeli troops seized this week, and en route to the city of Nabatieh. Israel has issued forced evacuation orders for Nabatieh and much of the area’s surrounding towns as it advances further towards the city, now deserted but normally one of the largest in south Lebanon. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had ordered Israeli troops to deepen their invasion of south Lebanon after capturing the medieval Beaufort crusader castle on Sunday. Hezbollah attacked Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, targeting them with rocket barrages near the castle, according to a statement by Hezbollah. The fighting came a day after a US-brokered ceasefire agreed on by the Israeli government and Lebanon was rejected by Hezbollah. The militant group called the deal, under which it would have stopped firing but with Israel allowed to continue carrying out airstrikes, tantamount to “surrender”. The Lebanese prime minister, Nawaf Salam, said on Friday: “Lebanon can no longer be a field for wars fought for others, nor can the south [of Lebanon] and its peoeple continue to pay the price for decisions they did not make.” Hezbollah is not a party to the negotiations between Israel and the government of Lebanon. Instead it has passed its positions and messages primarily through Lebanon’s parliament speaker, Nabih Berri. Berri, days before the failed ceasefire was drafted, said he could guarantee that Hezbollah would stop firing in return for a cessation of fighting. On Friday, Berri said Hezbollah would withdraw from the area south of the Litani River – 18 miles from the Lebanon-Israel border – only if Israeli troops withdrew from Lebanon and that a ceasefire was unconditional. Israel now occupies more than 608 sq km of Lebanese territory. Berri also criticised the idea of “pilot zones” included in the proposed ceasefire, in which the Israeli army would have withdrawn from certain areas and the Lebanese army returned to ensure no Hezbollah members entered. On Thursday, Israeli forces pulled out of the town of Dibbin in south Lebanon, the first time its troops had withdrawn from an area in south Lebanon since the war began on 2 March. Lebanese troops and UN peacekeepers entered the town on Friday, reopening roads and clearing rubble for residents. It is unclear if the Israeli withdrawal was linked to the “pilot zones” proposal. Lebanon and Israel have been engaging in dual-track negotiations in Washington to reach a ceasefire, but the ability of those talks to succeed without buy-in from Hezbollah are in serious doubt. Donald Trump is invested in the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations as Iran has linked the success of a Lebanon ceasefire with its own negotiations with Washington. The US president has repeatedly sought to end the Iran war amid soaring gas prices and plummeting approval ratings, and has reportedly grown frustrated with Netanyahu’s campaign in Lebanon as it has complicated talks with Iran. Netanyahu told ministers during a cabinet meeting on Thursday night that he would not seek government approval for the latest US-brokered ceasefire proposal with Lebanon unless Hezbollah first agreed to its terms, after Hezbollah rejected it on Thursday. According to the Israeli news outlet Ynet, several ministers voiced opposition to the fragile truce, which Israeli and Lebanese representatives agreed to extend during talks in Washington on Wednesday. They urged Netanyahu to submit the proposal to the cabinet for a formal vote before Israel committed to it. The Israeli prime minister rejected those demands, arguing that there was currently no agreement to approve because Hezbollah had yet to endorse the deal. “At the moment, there is no deal,” he reportedly told ministers. “Hezbollah is opposed, and therefore I am not making a decision.” He added that if the group accepted the proposal, he would bring it before the cabinet for approval. Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel started on 2 March after the militant group launched rockets at Israel in retaliation for the killing of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, triggering an Israeli invasion. More than 3,500 people have been killed by Israeli strikes in Lebanon, while Hezbollah has killed at least 29 Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and three Israeli civilians.

A low birthrate isn’t the end of the world | Brief letters

Surely the old will be cared for by robots while watching endless pictures of kittens (The right is desperate for a solution to falling birthrates. Who’s going to tell them that the answer is immigration?, 31 May). As the population falls, there will be a glut of housing, which will become affordable, and so women will be able to have more children and the cycle will begin again, assuming that one or other of the megalomaniacs haven’t blown us all to smithereens first. Mary Bolton Chiswick, London • Nigel Farage has called for “pure, cold rage” (Starmer urges calm as far right seeks to exploit Henry Nowak murder, 2 June). Strangely enough, this is precisely what I have felt since he and his cronies cheated me out of my EU membership back in 2016. Shane Roberts Easton, Bristol • Keir Starmer doesn’t believe that there is “two-tier policing” in this country. Oh really? At a peaceful vigil held in Trafalgar Square on 11 April, no fewer than 523 people, many of them pensioners, were arrested for holding signs protesting against genocide. Earlier this week, a violent racist mob brought terror to the streets of Southampton. Number of arrests? Two. Richard Munn Cambridge • Why use a leaf blower (Letters, 1 June) when a broom does the same job efficiently in an environmentally friendly way and without the awful noise? Helen Hodgson Cambridge • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Amid choppy waters around ‘secondhand subs’ and Trump, Labor’s sensitivity about the Aukus debate is growing

In a week of controversy around the Aukus nuclear agreement, Vice Adm Mark Hammond might be forgiven for feeling singed by public scrutiny. Hammond, the chief of the navy, was giving evidence in budget estimates hearings on Wednesday when he revealed that he had been “directed” to speak at an Aukus conference at Washington’s exclusive Cosmos Club back in April. The annual conference, for which ticket prices started at $4,950, was organised Christopher Pyne – who is among a suite of former ministers now making big money lobbying on the $368bn agreement. Hammond – promoted by the government to become chief of defence from next month – said he did not personally solicit speaking invitations and would only attend private events when “directed” to do so. But someone monitoring the hearing from the ministerial wing or the Russell defence complex might not have liked the answer. A couple of hours later, Hammond clarified that rather than being directed to speak, he had consulted with the government, and his address had been “approved” by the office of the defence minister, Richard Marles. The sensitivity is revealing. Concerns about the cost and reliability of the Aukus pact are growing. Labor needs to do a better job explaining just why one of the biggest and most expensive decisions ever taken by an Australian government should remain in the national interest. And it all comes amid renewed debate about Australia’s moves to more closely tie our defence to an increasingly unpredictable partner: Donald Trump’s America. Used subs for sale It was an announcement from Marles last weekend that brought the issue back to the foreground. After meeting with his US counterpart, Pete Hegseth, in Singapore, Marles said that Australia would no longer receive two Virginia-class submarines already in service and one new vessel. Instead, Australia would take three secondhand boats. Marles said the change made sense. Instead of running two different models of American submarines – each with their particular sensibilities and training requirements – streamlining the plan would make operations more effective. The Pentagon told journalists the cost efficiencies were likely to be in the workforce, maintenance and supply chains. The new defence department secretary, Meghan Quinn, went further in Canberra, saying Australia had always wanted three in-service boats. Labor is sensitive about the phrase “secondhand”. While the subs won’t be newly built, they will be operating at peak condition after about six years in the water and having just undergone their first major service. Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email Once handed over to Australia, the Virginias are expected to run for at least a quarter century. Marles and the defence industry minister, Pat Conroy, argue the early years of operation for complex military equipment are the most difficult, so it makes sense for the submarines to arrive once their operational condition is guaranteed. But selling the message was not straightforward for Labor. Entrenched scepticism about the deal – first negotiated by Scott Morrison and quickly endorsed by Labor in opposition – flared in the ALP caucus meeting on Tuesday when former cabinet minister Ed Husic spoke up. Husic’s position was that a material change in the deal should prompt reconsideration of the merits of Aukus, especially noting the “transactional” way Trump makes decisions. Dumped from the frontbench in a factional deal orchestrated by Marles after the 2025 election, it is not the first time Husic has been outspoken about sensitive issues for the government. On this point at least, Husic was quickly shown to be correct. This week, without any notice or consultation, Trump’s administration included Australia among dozens of countries at risk of a new 12.5% trade tariff, imposed for supposedly failing to prevent slave labour. The trade minister, Don Farrell, pushed back during talks with the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, in Paris, reminding him Australia has robust anti-slavery laws. Polls suggest support for nuclear subs holds firm On Aukus, no reconsideration will be forthcoming. Labor ministers were quick to point out Husic is just one MP within the caucus, with Conroy calling his comments “disingenuous”. He argued that Labor agreed to support Aukus before the so-called “optimal pathway” was agreed in 2023, a time when none of the specificity about the actual submarines had been settled and before key defence capability gaps were properly understood. Lowy Institute polling on Aukus shows public support holding firm. In 2025, two-thirds of Australians said they were somewhat or strongly in favour, roughly steady compared to 2022. One-third of Australians were opposed to Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. A community-led inquiry will test confidence over the coming months. Launched this week with the former environment minister Peter Garrett as the lead commissioner, it will probably be a mild irritant for the government between now and its final report in October. Organised by Aukus sceptics and outright opponents, the inquiry is set to hold its first hearings in Melbourne next week. Backed by trade unions and the Australia Institute thinktank, it received more than $85,000 in public donations in just four days this week, as well as 100 written submissions. Other allies and partners around the world are watching, too. Countries relying on Australia to exert authority as a middle power in the Indo-Pacific region have noted some political uncertainty related to Aukus, even early in a multi-decade process designed to secure submarine capability to deal with a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. If the Aukus subs are actually going to be useful in helping keep the peace, including against an assertive China, powers further away want to make sure they will materialise and can be relied on. If the first 18 months of his second term are any guide, Trump’s unpopularity and erratic behaviour could badly test social licence for Aukus. While he has offered support for the deal and strongly praised the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, Trump could easily reverse course at any time and pull the rug out from under Labor. His mistreatment of allies like Australia might convince others that sending billions of dollars to the US for submarines is a bad idea. Maintaining the “optimal pathway” ahead could be anything but straightforward. With increasingly choppy waters, it’s little wonder Hammond and the government might be sensitive around talk about Aukus.

UK-EU ‘reset’ summit may still happen next month despite delay speculation

The EU has said Keir Starmer’s upcoming summit “resetting” the UK-Europe relationship may still happen in July, amid growing fears it could be postponed to the autumn as talks over youth mobility remain deadlocked. “The summit is supposed to be mid-July but at the moment it could be put back to after the summer,” said one EU diplomat. “There is common concern that momentum is being lost. Negotiations always continue until the moment the clock stops and then you have a text the next morning, but because there is no deadline, the pressure is off,” the source added. Speaking at a conference in Brussels, the EU trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, said: “I believe that still the expectation is that we would have the summit, most probably in July.” Asked if talks were deadlocked on a scheme to allow under-30s to travel freely on a three-year visa scheme for youth, he said it was one of the top three issues, and one that EU ministers cared deeply about. Describing a recent meeting of 27 European ministers, he said: “When we were discussing the relationship with the UK, 20 ministers took the floor and said how the youth experience is important for them. So I think this is something what I see as an investment into the future.” Šefčovič added that his second daughter studied in the UK, “she has all the university friends from there, she speaks much better English than I do, she can do the British accent excellently”. His personal interest is reflected widely around governments in Europe, meaning it is turning into something of a red line for EU leaders. The UK business secretary, Peter Kyle, who had an hour-long meeting with Šefčovič in Brussels on Friday, said: “We are very aware of the strength of feeling” about youth mobility but a deal had to be “respectful” for both sides. The annual summit, the second of its kind since Brexit, was originally due to be held in May, exactly a year after the first, when Starmer and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, met in Lancaster House in Westminster. But with talks over a youth experience scheme and a veterinary deal taking longer than anticipated, 29 June was pencilled in for this year’s summit, according to sources. That has now shifted to a tentative date of 13 July and there is speculation it may move again. Kyle described his meeting with Šefčovič as “positive” and full of “hope and optimism” in trying to nail a deal on three areas – youth mobility, food and drink red tape and carbon emissions. Asked why there was still no date for the summit, Kyle said: “We’ve never set a date for it, but it’s incoming … we are throwing our heart and soul into this reset.” He added: “We are just determined that this summit, each time we do run these summits, is a big step forward. We’re not just always looking over our shoulder just to think ‘what did we do last time?’.” Four EU sources said talks were still deadlocked over the EU’s insistence that its citizens studying in the UK under the scheme pay “home” tuition fees. The UK wants to cap numbers of EU citizens coming to the UK at between 40,000 and 50,000 a year. One EU source accused the UK of trying to introduce new issues. “The UK keep wanting to link the youth mobility scheme to other things,” they said. Kyle said on Friday there were also issues for the British side, including business mobility. One EU diplomat complained about the secrecy of talks, which they said meant leading politicians could not give the help they wanted to expedite a deal. “We are aligned on values, we miss them, we want them back and we want to help them but they are very difficult to help when we do not know what their plan is,” said the diplomat. “We struggle a bit with the Brits because we don’t know their plan, their vision.” Kyle told the conference that the relationship had “healed” and relations could be closer after the summit but the UK had to take account of voters’ concerns about migration when it came to any youth mobility. “The way to win over the British people is to show that the EU delivers for British people wherever you live in the country,” he said. “If we can get those two things right from both sides then I think we have a really fantastic future.”

Ruling removes ‘vital’ UK safeguards for severely disabled people, charities warn

Severely disabled people will be at heightened risk of abuse in care homes and hospitals after the biggest upheaval in disability law in a generation overturned “vital” legal safeguards, campaigners have warned. They said a supreme court judgment that potentially strips the right of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people to independent checks on the safety and appropriateness of their care “devalues the dignity of disabled people”. The landmark ruling means many adults who lack mental capacity, including autistic people with high support needs, severe learning disabilities, serious mental illness and advanced dementia, will lose access to deprivation of liberty safeguards (Dols). The supreme court judgment, issued on Tuesday, overturned an existing legal framework for ensuring people in care homes and hospitals who lack capacity to consent to necessary treatment, medication or restraint receive safe care that is in their best interests. The UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Northern Ireland executive had challenged the safeguarding framework, introduced in 2014 and known as the Cheshire West judgment, on the grounds that it was wrong in law, no longer needed, and had created an expensive, intrusive and unnecessary care bureaucracy. The disability charities Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society said this week’s judgment “removes safeguards that history shows us are vital for disabled people” while introducing a “regressive legal standard” across the NHS and social care. They added: “By removing independent checks, advocacy and automatic access to legal aid, the court has closed the gateway to justice and support for many who need it most. Stripping away these safeguards makes it easier for abuse and neglect to go unnoticed behind closed doors.” They said the judgment flew in the face of lessons about the importance of independent care oversight taken from institutional abuse and neglect scandals involving vulnerable adults, including Winterbourne View, and the death of 18-year-old Connor Sparrowhawk. At Winterbourne View, six care workers were given prison terms for “cruel, callous and degrading” abuse of disabled patients, while Sparrowhawk suffered appalling neglect at an assessment and treatment unit, and drowned in a bath, behind a locked door, in the midst of an epileptic seizure. Campaigners are concerned the judgment rules that a person without capacity who appears passive, or does not actively protest about their care, even if they are sedated or restrained, will be deemed to have consented to that care, and will lose oversight and legal protections as a result. Oliver Lewis, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said: “The judgment ignores decades of evidence from disability studies that some people, by reason of their disability, are more suggestible, more prone to persuasion, more vulnerable to institutionalisation, to normalising abuse and neglect.” Campaigners are frustrated that the changes to Dols are to go ahead without public and parliamentary debate or stakeholder consultation and without an official risk and impact assessment being carried out. “Its undemocratic and outrageous,” said Lewis, who represented the charities in the case. Rashpal Bishop, the vice-president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, called the ruling “seismic”, saying its redefinition of deprivation of liberty would over time reduce the number of Dols applications, many of which were not required, and enable councils to reprioritise staff and financial resources. She said the Dols system would “in time focus on a smaller group of people who are likely to be unhappy with their care arrangements and are actively objecting to their placement, or where the restrictions are extreme and there is a need to provide the legal safeguards and the ability to challenge their detention”. The Cheshire West judgment massively expanded the numbers of people subject to Dols. About 400,000 people in England and Wales were estimated to hold Dols in 2023-24, compared with about 14,000 in 2013-14. Each Dols is reassessed annually, a process that can cost more than £500 a time. Concerns about the administrative and cost burden of the post-2014 Dols system led to 2019 legislation enabling a more streamlined system called liberty protection safeguards. However, successive governments failed to introduce it. The current government said last year it would consult on the new approach. Announcing the consultation, which is yet to open, the minister of state for care, Stephen Kinnock, said last year: “Safeguarding the vulnerable and protecting their rights is the absolute priority of this government.” In its submission to the court the DHSC argued that requirements for Dols were “much reduced” since the Cheshire West judgment as “there are now extensive safeguards for incapacitated persons” not in place at the time, including Care Act protections and care quality inspections. Campaigners called for urgent guidance from the government on the new arrangements, amid fears the ruling will trigger “months of chaos” as local authorities seek to cancel current authorisations and new applications, leaving disabled people and families in limbo. A government spokesperson said: “We respect the supreme court’s decision on the meaning of deprivation of liberty. Our priority has always been safeguarding vulnerable people and ensuring their rights are protected. We will now consider the judgment carefully and its potential impacts and will set out guidance to the sector shortly.”

Out of the shadows: Venezuela’s opposition emerges from hiding but remains on political sidelines

For nearly 600 days, Anthony Romero crept between more than a dozen safe houses to avoid being captured by Venezuela’s secret police. After helping challenge Nicolás Maduro’s spurious claim to have won the 2024 presidential election, the opposition activist went underground, as the South American dictator waged a ruthless crackdown in an attempt to cling to power. “He unleashed the harshest repression Venezuela has ever seen – we’re talking about nearly 3,000 arrests,” recalled Romero, 35, a lawyer who is part of the Nobel laureate María Corina Machado’s political party, Vente Venezuela. But on a recent sunny Saturday, Romero had emerged from hiding and was back on the streets, proudly wearing their movement’s signature-blue shirt as pro-democracy activists revived their campaign for change after Maduro’s overthrow appeared to herald a tentative glasnost. “I see a bright and prosperous future for Venezuela,” Romero effused as he canvassed in the winding alleys of La Dolorita, a deprived neighbourhood in east Caracas. Such activism would have been a kamikaze mission before US special forces ended Maduro’s tyrannical reign on 3 January. “We’d have been arrested immediately,” said Jonatan Molero, 46, an activist and restaurateur also wearing the colours of Machado’s movement. A third local campaigner accompanying Romero, a retired carpentry teacher named Oswaldo Rodríguez, 59, recalled being so terrified by the post-election crackdown that, when armed pro-regime thugs arrived at his home, he used scissors to destroy his blue Vente shirt. Now the repression has eased, at least temporarily, with Maduro’s successors largely tolerating opposition protests and gatherings – despite the fact that no democratic transition has taken place and there is still no date for new elections. Three hours after Romero’s visit began, police officers arrived and photographed his group, but they were otherwise left undisturbed. As dozens of party canvassers strolled through the hillside community, Romero promised that Machado would soon return to conclude her push for democracy. “The process that began after 3 January will, without any doubt whatsoever, lead us to a transition, to a democratically elected government and to a free and flourishing Venezuela,” he said. Analysts have their doubts. A recent Chatham House report based on input from election experts, diplomats and scholars of democratic transitions suggests Venezuela has its best opportunity in more than a decade to rescue its democracy and collapsed economy. But the British thinktank warned the momentum for change was fading, with the Trump administration seemingly content to leave Maduro’s vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, in power in exchange for economic concessions and obedience from a country the US president has pondered turning into the 51st state. The report’s author, Christopher Sabatini, said Washington showed little interest in pushing for elections that could threaten a lucrative new relationship some critics compare to colonial rule. “[The US] needs a foreign policy win, and Venezuela – rightly or wrongly – is what they’re holding up as a win in the face of Iran and an uncertain agenda and outcome in Cuba,” Sabatini said of Trump’s parallel crusade to subjugate the Caribbean island’s communist leaders. “[Washington’s] interest was never democracy … much to the frustration of the opposition.” In La Dolorita, some Machado supporters insisted they were keeping faith in Donald Trump’s three-phase roadmap for their country’s future: stabilisation, economic recovery and political transition. “Donald Trump has been a great ally of democracy in Venezuela,” said the retired carpenter Rodríguez, acknowledging that many Venezuelans had been disappointed not to see the “total change” they had hoped for. “But I believe the strategy of Donald Trump’s government is the correct one,” he added, expressing confidence that negotiations and US pressure would gradually produce substantial reforms, including an overhaul of the pro-regime National Electoral Council and free and fair elections. Daniel Gaspar, a 35-year-old motorcycle taxi driver from La Dolorita, said: “We’re moving forwards! Only crabs move backwards!” But there are signs of fraying patience among Venezuelans who hoped Maduro’s abduction would bring immediate democracy. One recent poll found support for Trump’s actions had plunged from 92% in January to 46% in April amid growing discomfort about his obsession with securing access to Venezuelan natural resources and apparent indifference to elections. The longing for a genuine political shift was palpable as Romero’s campaigners advanced through the backstreets of La Dolorita, long considered a working-class stronghold of Maduro’s Chavismo movement but where he suffered a crushing defeat in 2024. On almost every doorstep, they encountered anger at how years of hyperinflation, hunger, corruption and state violence had had brought the area to its knees and caused millions to flee abroad. In a dimly lit shack at the top of a steep stairwell, 63-year-old María Núñez told Romero her house had not received a drop of running water in 21 years. She remembered once having been able to afford pork chops; now she ate chicken feet. She said neighbours faced even greater difficulties: one family of four with a child with special educational needs were so poor they lacked a mattress and slept on the floor. “We want true, profound change,” Núñez said, imploring Romero’s team to find a bed for her neighbours. Of Machado, Núñez said: “I want her to be president of Venezuela because she knows Venezuela … and I ask God to make her Venezuela’s president.” Juan Córdova, a community organiser, said hunger was widespread, and even comparatively better-off families were struggling, making $50 for a seven-day-week. “Fifty dollars buys you nothing,” complained Córdova, 57. Of the government, he said: “Every day they and their friends grow richer and the people grow poorer … We want change – and we hope it comes soon.” Machado, who slipped out of Venezuela in December to receive a Nobel prize she later gave to Trump, has responded diplomatically to the slow pace of change, keen not to alienate her most powerful supporter despite his decision to sideline her. The conservative democracy activist has pledged to return home to seek Venezuela’s presidency by the end of this year – but her path to power appears to be narrowing, given the increasingly cosy relationship between Rodríguez and Trump. Speaking after a recent opposition summit in Panama, Machado urged the US to help “promote a serious, firm and responsible political negotiation with the interim regime to restore democracy in Venezuela”. Sabatini predicted Machado would at some point make good on her promise to return home, where she would seek to reassert leadership of the opposition and a “showdown” with Rodríguez’s regime, with unpredictable consequences, including her possible arrest. “If something happens to her, it really becomes a showdown of whether the Trump administration will go to battle for María Corina Machado against the interim government that it has embraced. I wouldn’t be sure which way that would go … quite frankly,” he said. Romero was more optimistic as he wrapped up his tour with an improvised assembly inside the sitting room of 58-year-old Neirubes Millan. She wept as she described her struggle to feed La Dolorita’s most deprived children during the worst moments of Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis. “We cry because we aren’t the people we used to be,” Millan said. “But happiness is on its way … Soon this will all be over and things will be different. And if once we shed tears of sorrow, we will then shed tears of joy.” After taking a video call from a senior Vente leader who remained in exile, Romero stepped out into the afternoon sunlight, celebrating the enthusiastic welcome his team had been afforded in an area where the opposition had long been shunned. “We’re convinced we’re going to completely break with 21st-century socialism,” he said, before his convoy wound its way out of La Dolorita, old weather-beaten propaganda murals paying tribute to Maduro’s fallen regime. Beneath one wall painting celebrating the dictator’s “good governance”, a scavenger in yellowing Nike trainers used a butter tray to shovel through a rubble-filled dumpster. Farther ahead was a homage to Maduro’s late mentor, Hugo Chávez, accompanied by a slogan given new meaning by the downfall of his heir. “La esperanza está en la calle,” it read. “Hope lies in the street”. Additional reporting by María de los Ángeles Graterol.