If corporations pay more taxes in areas with above-average income relief, it isn’t just the general public that estimated this. This is the important thing to search out Our recent research Posted within the magazine Accounting and in public interest.

Our statement questions the normal economic theory that investors consider corporation tax A transfer of assets of shareholders to the state. This would indicate that investors only appreciate strategies that minimize taxes. The reality isn’t that easy.

As accounting Professors At the University of Dayton we study the interface of corporate taxes and social responsibility for corporations. We wanted to higher understand how corporate taxes influence the worth and stock prices of the corporate and whether this relationship changes when an organization has its headquarters in an area with high income relief.

We examined the financial data of over 1,500 corporations over a period of 10 years between 2011 and 2019 and the income inequality within the subway areas where you might have your headquarters. We used for the latter point The Gini coefficientA measure of the distribution of income in a certain location. This is a very useful context for considering corporate taxes, since one of the vital functions of taxation is to counteract inequality.

We have found that there’s a negative connection between corporate taxes and company value for corporations based in areas with average inequality. In other words, more corporate taxes lower the corporate value. That corresponds with Previous research And traditional economic theory.

However, we found that the connection between corporate taxes and stuck value creations when the inequality of local income increases above average. This flip indicates that some corporations actually receive financial advantages from the payment of corporate taxes.

Why? We found that these corporations enjoy a fame advantage for socially responsible taxpayers. In fact, our results were driven by corporations which are otherwise generally considered good corporate residents. For these corporations, the payment of taxes is one among many socially responsible behaviors.

Why is it vital

Our research provides indications that investors have a look at corporate taxes positively in the event that they match other socially responsible behaviors. Given the indisputable fact that corporations have a Trust For their shareholders, this realization indicates that corporate taxes can play a job within the social responsibility of the corporate or the CSR efforts of an organization.

Our results also match a 2023 KPMG survey amongst greater than 300 chief tax officers who found that they were more around Looks like good corporate residents than to scale back their tax burden.

Extensive research has shown that corporate investments in CSR activities usually are not only selfless, but are also related to improved operational and financial results. There are indications that corporations that prioritize CSR Attach top quality employees; have Improved company shortage; And are more profitable As assessed by the return of the assets, return on equity and return on sales.

While the work on tax responsibility has remained behind other CSR research results, the evidence that the payment of corporation taxes has positive effects. A big a part of these research results shows that corporations that aggressively minimize tax payments and have the decision to deal as “tax avoidance” and thus the tip result – and thus the .

Our study has this research and identifies a selected context through which investors have a look at corporate taxes positively. At a time of tax reform Both global And within the USA and as legislators and experts, more tax transparency continues to demand that corporations should pay attention to the role of corporate tax responsibility of their entire CSR portfolio.

What's next

The tax responsibility of the corporation is complex and never yet well defined. Our current research is investigating other circumstances that cause investors to understand corporate taxes, which helps corporations to quantify the worth of the inclusion of taxes of their CSR portfolios.

A report commissioned by FIFA concludes that the football association “bears a responsibility” to compensate staff who suffered throughout the hosting of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

The long-awaited report of the FIFA Subcommittee on Human Rights and Social Responsibility, finally published at midnight Central European Time on Friday, said that the FIFA Subcommittee “has taken a number of steps to fulfill its responsibility for respecting human rights to do justice.” the organization of the tournament two years ago.

However, FIFA did not act on considered one of the report's key recommendations and used the Qatar Legacy Fund to assist staff affected by human rights abuses. Instead, it announced it could donate the cash to several other programs that do circuitously compensate staff in Qatar.

FIFA emphasized that the study was not “a legal assessment of the duty to remedy the situation.”

The independent study, commissioned by the subcommittee and developed by business and human rights consultancy Human Level, finds that “Qatar ultimately experienced a series of serious human rights impacts” for plenty of staff from 2010 to 2022 are related to the tournament.

These included “deaths, injuries and illnesses; Wages are not paid for months; and significant debts faced by workers and their families in reimbursing the fees they paid to seek employment in Qatar.”

While acknowledging that “the primary responsibility for correcting such deficiencies lies with the direct employers of these workers as well as the Qatari Government,” the Subcommittee “endorses the view expressed in the Human Level Study that FIFA is also responsible.” “has a responsibility to take additional measures to help provide relief for these workers.”

World Cup organizers put the variety of deaths directly linked to the staging of the tournament at 40. Human rights groups have long believed that 1000’s of staff died.

A FIFA spokesman said: “All reports and recommendations were considered as part of a comprehensive review by the FIFA administration and relevant committees. Although not all recommendations could be met, practical and effective elements were retained.

“It should be noted that the study is not specifically a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy the situation.”

The report recommends that FIFA should use its Qatar Legacy Fund to assist affected staff or, within the case of the deceased, their members of the family.

The subcommittee advises them to “comply with the intention announced by FIFA in a press release dated November 19, 2022 to use all or part of the FIFA World Cup 2022 Legacy Fund to further strengthen the legacy of the competition for migrant workers.”

However, two days before the report was published FIFA announced The $50 million fund would as a substitute be used for a variety of social programs worldwide in collaboration with Qatar and three organizations: the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.

A FIFA spokesperson said: “The establishment of the FIFA World Cup 2022 Legacy Fund was unanimously endorsed by the FIFA Council following a proposal from the FIFA Governance, Audit and Compliance Committee.”

“A Workers Support and Insurance Fund was established in Qatar in 2018 and FIFA believes that the new Legacy Fund, supported by recognized international organizations, is a pragmatic and transparent initiative that will include social programs to help the people most in need to help around the world.”

After awarding the World Cup to Qatar, FIFA incorporated human rights into its tournament bidding process.

On Friday, FIFA's evaluation report on Saudi Arabia's bid for the 2034 World Cup declared its human rights risk assessment as “medium.”

A vote on the host of the tournament, where the Saudi bid is unrivaled, will happen on the FIFA Congress on December eleventh.

I hope to win over customers and firms Amazon To zoom have taken praise their good deeds in corporate social responsibility reports.

CSR reports allow corporations to focus on what they’ve done for staff, consumers, communities and the environment – essentially all of their goals beyond just making a profit. Research shows that CSR statements are linked to this increasing sales.

As Marketing professorI believed this raised an interesting query: When corporations are successful with CSR disclosures, do they attract recent customers – or do their additional sales come solely from their existing base?

In one current study from several hundred Chinese corporations, a colleague and I put the query to the test. We found that CSR disclosure reduces an organization's dependence on existing customers by 2.1%.

This is sweet news for corporations. This implies that these additional sales come from recent customers who are literally impressed with the corporate's CSR efforts.

But the outcomes weren’t all positive.

In order to sell more products, corporations generally must buy more supplies. So a logical follow-up query is: Does an organization's CSR disclosure result in purchases from recent suppliers?

In fact, we found the alternative. Companies that published CSR disclosures appeared to discourage recent suppliers. This is probably going because when an organization chooses to prioritize social responsibility, suppliers often bear the prices.

Dependence on suppliers is related to costs for corporations. When suppliers know that an organization is determined by them, they have a tendency to demand payment in money reasonably than credit. This can harm an organization since it now has less money for investments.

While CSR reports impress customers, they appear to harass suppliers – and that comes at a price.

Why it matters

Previous research has shown that CSR disclosures can increase sales. However, it was unclear for a very long time whether these additional sales got here from old or newly acquired customers. Our work creates clarity that corporations can use of their decision-making.

The results are also of interest to lawmakers, regulators and company responsibility advocates who’re discussing making CSR reporting mandatory.

The United States doesn’t require corporations to publish CSR reports, but some countries do. One of those is China, which in 2008 mandated that each one listed corporations submit annual CSR reports starting in 2009. This set the stage for the virtually natural experiment we conducted.

Interestingly, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has also reportedly done this taken under consideration adopt a type of corporate social responsibility Reporting requirement. Because there are not any requirements, many American corporations will proceed to voluntarily report on their CSR.

In other words, the necessity for empirical evidence on the prices and advantages of CSR disclosure is bigger than ever.

What's next?

The increasing incidence of extreme weather events And weather-related deaths and injuries sparked my interest in environmental responsibility. I actually have two ongoing research projects.

First, I exploit an organization's public disclosures to measure its environmental risks and the actions it has taken to mitigate them. Second, I examine how CEO incentives influence a firm's environmental disclosure, activities, and spending—or lack thereof.

Charlene Stepney still thinks a couple of French-speaking woman who got here to her salon years ago, brought along by a person who spoke on her behalf and watched her closely during her hair appointment.

“Because I was speaking French and it was weird, I started asking her questions,” Stepney said Thursday evening at her business, the Stepney Institute of Esthetics & Wellness in Homewood. “I asked her: Was that her husband? and she said, “No, it wasn't.” Then I asked her, was she safe? And she didn’t answer.”

Stepney said she believed the girl was a victim of human trafficking but didn't know easy methods to help her on the time.

“I still feel to this day that I let them down,” Stepney said.

Estheticians like Stepney are prepared to see clients from a big selection of backgrounds and life experiences, which might include survivors of abuse. In 2019, the law made it mandatory for all licensed beauty professionals to receive training on easy methods to handle difficult conversations and recognize signs of domestic violence and sexual assault.

On Thursday, representatives from the Crisis Center for South Suburbia offered training and perspectives during a session on the Stepney Institute. It was one in every of the primary of many offered to salon professionals of their schools and workplaces throughout October, Domestic Violence Awareness Month. While the middle provides freed from charge Training Visiting salons and cosmetology schools like Stepney's all year long, Chris Alcorn Catena, director of support services for the Crisis Center, hopes to focus on resources for all cosmetologists within the South and Southwest suburbs who need to pursue further training requirement for license renewal.

“The reason it's so important to us is, quite honestly, because estheticians have a unique approach,” Alcorn Catena said. “A beautician is one of the few professionals who can touch you… My hairdresser will move the hair from the back of my neck. If there are bruises, they will see them.”

At Thursday's session on the Stepney Institute, the importance of addressing or responding to a client who’s showing signs of abuse was not lost on students. Crisis Center Community Education and Outreach Coordinator Tracy Curtis, herself a domestic violence survivor, delivered the training and emphasized the importance of providing support and resources for many who could also be in dangerous relationships.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 41% of girls and 26% of men have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime.

“It’s our responsibility to help,” Curtis said during Thursday’s practice. “It really is, because it affects us all. I was the one victim where my friend said, ‘I don’t want to get involved.’ So I don’t want to make someone feel so uncomfortable that they don’t get involved because they need the support.”

Curtis said anyone unsure about easy methods to support someone experiencing domestic violence can contact the crisis center's 24/7 hotline at 708-429-7233.

After the two-hour training, Stepney Institute student Tymeeka Fairfax said she was excited to learn the training was mandatory for licensing and thought she could apply what she learned outside of her work in the sweetness industry. She said that as a volunteer mentor to young girls, she recognized the importance of talking about healthy relationships early on and that the training provided latest skills for initiating and leading conversations about intimate relationships.

“Before I came to this class, I had a session with a group of girls who were talking about dating, and the conversations were all about 'I love him and he loves me,'” Fairfax said. “And I asked: What is love? Love language is one thing that should be transparent because if you know how to love someone, you can kind of take into account, okay, this is abuse and this is love – differentiate the two.”

But the legal requirement to train beauty professionals in domestic violence is met with some resistance. Stepney said since the mandate went into effect, she has questioned why the state has put the majority-female industry in charge of responding to a predominantly male-driven problem.

“I still often wonder why we were chosen,” Stepney said. “How much help are we really going to be?” The thing that never really gets talked about is how a lot of us find ourselves in abusive situations.”

Stepney said she hopes that in the longer term, estheticians shall be given more tools to guard themselves while continuing to support their clients and colleagues.

“As time goes on, hopefully the conversations will stay current and allow us to do more training,” she said.

Originally published: October 10, 2024 at 11:22 am

A self-driving taxi has no passengers, so it parks itself in a parking zone to avoid traffic jams and Air pollutionAfter the taxi is stopped, it sets off to choose up its passenger – and tragically hits a pedestrian on the best way at a zebra crossing.

Who or what deserves praise for the automobile's actions in reducing congestion and air pollution? And who or what’s guilty for the pedestrian's injuries?

One possibility can be the designer or developer of the self-driving taxi. But in lots of cases, they might not have been in a position to predict the taxi's exact behavior. In fact, people often expect artificial intelligence to find a brand new or unexpected idea or plan. If we all know exactly what the system should do, we don't must trouble with AI.

Alternatively, perhaps one should praise and blame the taxi itself. However, some of these AI systems are essentially deterministic: their behavior is set by their code and the incoming sensor data, even when observers have difficulty predicting that behavior. It seems odd to morally condemn a machine that had no other alternative.

Accordingly many modern Philosophersrational agents may be morally responsible for his or her actions, even when those actions were completely predetermined—whether by neuroscience or by code. Most agree, nevertheless, that the moral agent should have certain capabilities that self-driving taxis almost actually lack, reminiscent of the power to develop its own values. AI systems find themselves in an ungainly middle position between moral agents and non-moral tools.

As a society, we’re faced with a dilemma: It seems that nobody and nothing is morally chargeable for the actions of AI – philosophers speak of a responsibility gap. Today's theories of ethical responsibility simply don’t seem suitable for understanding situations involving autonomous or semi-autonomous AI systems.

If current theories don't work, perhaps we should always look to the past – to centuries-old ideas that also resonate surprisingly today.

God and Man

An analogous query occupied the Christian theologians of the thirteenth and 14th centuries. Thomas Aquinas To Duns Scotus To William of OckhamHow can people be chargeable for their actions and the results in the event that they were created by an all-knowing God – and presumably knew what they were going to do?

Medieval philosophers believed that an individual’s decisions are the results of his will and are based on the products of his intellect. By and enormous, they understood the human intellect as a set of mental abilities that enable rational pondering and learning.

Intellect is the rational, logical a part of the human mind or soul. When two individuals are faced with equivalent situations and each come to the identical “rational conclusion” about how you can handle things, they’re using intellect. Intellect is like computer code on this respect.

But the intellect doesn’t all the time provide a transparent answer. Often the intellect only provides possibilities and the need chooses amongst themwhether consciously or unconsciously. Will is the act of free alternative from the probabilities.

An easy example: On a rainy day, my mind tells me to get an umbrella from my closet, but not which one. Will chooses the red umbrella as a substitute of the blue one.

For this medieval thinkers, moral responsibility relied on what the need and intellect each contributed. If the intellect determines that there is simply one possible motion, then I couldn’t act otherwise and am due to this fact not morally responsible. One might even conclude that God is morally responsible because my intellect comes from God – although medieval theologians were very cautious about attributing responsibility to God.

On the opposite hand, if the mind doesn’t impose any restrictions on my actions, I’m fully morally responsible, because the will does all of the work. Of course, most actions involve each the mind and the need – it is normally not an either/or.

In addition, we are sometimes constrained by other people: from parents and teachers to judges and monarchs, especially within the time of the medieval philosophers. This makes attributing moral responsibility much more complicated.

Humans and AI

Of course, the connection between AI developers and their creations will not be the exact same as that between God and humans. But how Professors of Philosophy and Computingwe see fascinating parallels. These older ideas could help us today to think about how an AI system and its developers might share moral responsibility.

AI developers are usually not omniscient gods, but they supply the “intelligence” of the AI ​​system by Selection and implementation its learning methods and response capabilities. From the designer's perspective, this “intelligence” constrains the AI's behavior, but almost never completely determines it.

Most modern AI systems are designed to learn from data and react dynamically to their environment. So the AI ​​seems to have a “will” that decides how you can react inside the framework of its “intelligence”.

Users, managers, regulators, and other parties can impose additional constraints on AI systems – analogous to human authorities, reminiscent of monarchs, constraining people within the context of medieval philosophers.

Who is responsible?

These millennia-old ideas translate surprisingly well to the structure of ethical problems related to AI systems. So let's return to our initial questions: Who or what’s chargeable for the advantages and harms of the self-driving taxi?

The details matter. For example, if the taxi developer explicitly specifies how the taxi should behave at zebra crossings, then its actions are solely attributable to its “intelligence” – and thus the developers are responsible.

However, suppose the taxi encounters situations for which it was not explicitly programmed – for instance, if the crosswalk is marked in an unusual way, or if the taxi learns something different from what the developer had in mind from the info of its environment. In such cases, the taxi's actions can be primarily on account of its “will” since it selected an unexpected option – and due to this fact the taxi is responsible.

If the taxi is morally responsible, then what? Is the taxi company liable? Should the taxi code be updated? Even the 2 of us disagree on the total answer. But we expect a greater understanding of ethical responsibility is a crucial first step.

Medieval ideas are usually not nearly medieval objects. These theologians will help ethicists today higher understand the present challenges posed by AI systems – even when we have now only scratched the surface thus far.

SOLINGEN, Germany (AP) — The Islamic State The group claimed responsibility for a knife attack in Solingen, Germany, on Saturday that left three people dead and eight others injured, in accordance with its news site Amaq.

The group said the attacker targeted Christians and was an “Islamic State soldier” who carried out the attack “to avenge Muslims in Palestine and around the world.”

The police have begun a raid on an asylum seekers' home in downtown Solingen, including with special forces, reported the German news agency DPA.

“We have received information and are currently taking police action,” said a police spokesman.

Special police units were involved within the seek for the unknown knife attacker who slit the throats of revelers at a well-attended festival within the western German city, killing three people and injuring at the least eight others, 4 of them seriously.

A 15-year-old boy was arrested early Saturday. Police said he was suspected of knowing concerning the planned attack and never informing authorities, but was not the attacker.

Markus Caspers of the anti-terrorism department of the general public prosecutor's office said at a press conference on Saturday that the authorities had not yet found the perpetrator.

“So far we have not been able to identify a motive, but given the overall circumstances we cannot rule out the possibility of terrorism,” Caspers said, without giving further details.

The three dead were two men aged 67 and 56 and a 56-year-old woman, authorities said. Police said the attacker apparently aimed specifically at his victims' throats.

Thorsten Fleiss of the German police, who served as operations manager on Friday evening, said that police throughout the state of North Rhine-Westphalia were carrying out various search and investigation measures that may last throughout the day.

He said it was a “huge challenge” to bring together existing evidence and witness statements to form an overall picture.

Fleiss also said police found several knives, but added he couldn’t confirm whether the perpetrator used any of them as a weapon within the attack.

Police warned the general public to stay vigilant at the same time as well-wishers began laying flowers on the scene. Authorities arrange a web-based portal where witnesses could upload footage and other information relevant to the attack.

Solingen's churches have opened their doors and offer space for prayer and emergency pastoral care.

Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser visited Solingen on Saturday evening. She said the federal government would do every part it could to support the town and the people of Solingen.

“We will not allow such a terrible attack to divide our society,” she said along with North Rhine-Westphalia's Prime Minister Hendrik Wüst and State Minister of the Interior Herbert Reul.

Wüst described the attack as “a terrorist act against the security and freedom of this country.” But Faeser, the country's top security official, didn’t classify it as a “terrorist attack.”

Reul announced that the Interior Minister's planned visit to the crime scene wouldn’t happen as a result of the continued police operation within the affected districts. He appealed to the population to “give the police time” in order that they may do their job. He also announced that police presence could be increased at larger events, particularly since the perpetrator had not yet been caught.

Shortly after 9:30 p.m. on Friday, the police were alerted because an unknown attacker had injured several individuals with a knife within the central square, the Fronhof.

“Last night it broke our hearts. We Solingen residents are filled with horror and sadness. What happened in our city yesterday is making it hard for us to sleep,” said Solingen Mayor Tim Kurzbach to journalists near the crime scene on Saturday.

The “Festival of Diversity” to mark the town's 650th anniversary began on Friday and was scheduled to run until Sunday. Attractions equivalent to live music, cabaret and acrobatics were to be offered on several stages within the central streets.

The attack occurred in the group in front of a stage. Hours after the attack, the stage lights were still on while police and forensics searched the cordoned-off area for clues. The remainder of the festival was canceled.

Solingen has about 160,000 inhabitants and is situated near the main cities of Cologne and Düsseldorf.

Caspers said on the news conference that the 15-year-old boy was arrested after two female witnesses contacted police. They said they overheard a conversation between the boy and an unknown person before the attack during which intentions were discussed that were consistent with the events that followed.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Saturday that the perpetrator should be caught quickly and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

“The attack in Solingen is a terrible event that has shocked me deeply. An attacker brutally killed several people. I have just spoken to Solingen's mayor, Tim Kurzbach. We mourn the victims and support their families,” Scholz said on X.

Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier also spoke with Kurzbach on Saturday morning.

“The perpetrator must be brought to justice. Let us stand together against hatred and violence.”

There are fears of a rise in knife violence in Germany and Interior Minister Nancy Faeser recently proposed tightening the gun laws. In future, carrying knives in public will only be permitted if the blade is as much as six centimetres long. Currently, only 12 centimetres is permitted.

---

Stephanie Liechtenstein reported from Vienna.

Harry Kane responded to Gary Lineker's criticism of England's Euro 2024 campaign by saying that former internationals have a “responsibility” to reflect on the impact of their words.

England got here under scrutiny after a 1-1 draw with Denmark of their second group match at Euro 2024, with former striker Lineker branding the performance “shit”.

Kane said while he understood that pundits had an obligation to be honest, he added that former players should pay attention to the challenges involved in representing England given the country's historic and ongoing failures at major tournaments.

Asked specifically about Lineker's comments, Kane replied: “Former players have to be aware that it is very difficult not to listen to it these days, especially for some players who are not used to it or who are new to the environment.”

“I always feel they have a responsibility. I know they have to be honest and give their opinion, but they also have a responsibility as a former England player who many players looked up to. People are interested in what they say and people listen to them.

“Everyone has their very own opinion but the underside line is that we haven't won anything as a nation for a really, very very long time and a number of these players were involved in that too, in order that they know the way tough it’s.

“It's not about eliminating anyone. It's just the fact that they know it's tough to play in these big tournaments and tough to play for England.”

“I would never disrespect a player. I would just say: remember what it's like to wear that jersey and that his words are listened to. They are heard.

“We all need to win a giant tournament. If we help them as much as we will and provides them confidence, that's a significantly better way.”

Lineker, 63, scored 48 goals in 80 appearances for England between 1984 and 1992. He won the Golden Boot at the 1986 World Cup and was part of the England team that reached the semi-finals of the 1990 European Championships in Italy.

After England’s draw with Denmark, Lineker told the Rest is football podcast: “I believe we want to reflect the mood of the nation. I can't imagine that anyone who’s English would have enjoyed that performance since it was lethargic, it was grim. You can think up all kinds of words and swear words if you happen to want, but it surely was shit.”

Kane scored his first goal of the European Championship against Denmark, but admitted that he had been out of form personally in the first two games.

“I attempt to steer clear of it (watching and reading media criticism) as much as possible,” he added. “I believe it's almost unattainable lately with all the several platforms to not see some things.”

“As a player, everyone has the correct to their very own opinion and I do know that in big tournaments all the pieces gets more exciting and performance is scrutinised. If I'm honest with myself… did I do my best? No.

“But I didn't score a goal in the group stage of the World Cup or the group stage of the European Championship. So from my point of view, being one goal ahead is a bonus. I always judge myself first and I know I can play better and I know a lot of players in the team think that too – that we can all play a little bit better. That's what I do. I don't panic. I don't get too elated or too depressed. I keep doing what I'm doing and just move on to the next game.”

Kane was substituted within the second half of England's draw with Denmark after missing the tip of Germany's season with a back injury.

Although there have been concerns concerning the 30-year-old's fitness, he stressed that he felt fresh and had no injury worries.

“I think the preparation for the tournament was good for me personally,” said Kane. “Even in the matches of the tournament, in the first game, I felt as fit as I have all season. Of course I know that I was substituted in the second game, but that was because the coach wanted to see something different, maybe especially to freshen up the strikers.”

“In my opinion, I am fit and I am getting better and fitter with every game. I have said the same thing in previous tournaments, that you have to try to be at your best when the most important part of the tournament comes, the knockout round.

“As at all times, time will tell. If we’re eliminated, there might be a number of questions, but from my standpoint, I believe that going into that knockout round, you’re feeling 100% comfortable (that's necessary) and I believe I'm there.”

Gareth Southgate's side are preparing for their final Group C game against Slovenia on Tuesday, currently leading the table with four points.

After the draw with Denmark, Southgate said England were not physically at the “right” side to apply pressure high up the pitch.

Kane said England's pressing problems stemmed from playing against a back three against Serbia and Denmark. Slovenia played with a back four in their first two group matches and the England captain said he hoped his side could be more forceful.

“I believe each games against the three-man defense left us a bit confused on the pitch,” he said. “We had prepared before the sport. But then there have been just certain things where we couldn't quite construct up the pressure that we desired to and we weren't 100% sure when to go and that's difficult.”

“I don't think we were good with the ball, which made it feel like we were just running and continuously running. So it was difficult to reverse that momentum. I believe in the subsequent game it’ll be a special threat due to lineup… it’ll probably be different than in Slovenia. Hopefully we will show a bit more energy and enthusiasm, especially without the ball, and I believe that may help us with the ball as well.”

---

What we learned from Kane's expressive performance

Harry Kane entered the English media room at Blankenhain Castle, won a darts match, sat down, answered questions, took a sip of water and then left the room.

But the part in between, in which the English captain spent 40 minutes clarifying things from the camp's point of view, was unusually revealing.

It was decided on Sunday morning that Kane would be the player to speak at the public press conference. This is part of a wider strategy by the Football Association regarding which voices are heard and at what time, and Kane is more than happy to take on that responsibility.

analyzed what he said and what it meant

England's critics

“The bottom line is that we haven't won anything as a nation for a really, very very long time and a number of these players have been involved in that. They know the way tough it’s,” Kane said in reference to Lineker's dig.

Lineker was not the only pundit to criticise England's performance against Denmark, but as the face of Britain's national broadcaster's football coverage, his words carry more weight than most.

Although Kane remained respectful and raised several reservations, he clearly wanted to stand up for the team after the negative reaction to them.

His own fitness

“I felt fitter than I actually have all season. I do know I used to be substituted within the second game, but that was since the coach desired to see something different and clean up the strikers. It's necessary to enter this knockout round feeling 100% and I believe I'm there.”

Kane was quick to dismiss the notion that he was not fully fit, having missed Bayern Munich's final game of the season due to a back injury.

He looked underwhelmed in England's first two games at Euro 2024, but tried to reassure his fans by telling them not to worry about his fitness.

Tactical problems within the opening games

“I just think playing against the back three in both games caused us a little bit of confusion on the pitch. We had prepared before the game. But then there were just certain things where we couldn't quite build the pressure that we wanted to and we weren't 100 percent sure when to go and that's difficult.”

After the Denmark game, Kane said the players didn't know when to use pressure. It was a devastating revelation. And now he has provided that assessment a bit more context, mentioning that playing against a back three disrupted attacking triggers. Playing against Slovenia's likely back 4 should alleviate that problem.

keep Calm and carry on

“I think we are calm. Many of us have been here and done it and we have given the English fans some fantastic moments. I know that 99 percent (of the fans) are fully behind us. You can judge us after the tournament.”

The word “calm” was utilized by Kane 3 times during his press conferences and in as many answers.

The message from England's training camp after the Denmark game is that the team remain relaxed – or at the very least attempt to – despite the dismal performances. Kane reiterated that message on Sunday, urging fans to order their final judgement until the tip of the Three Lions tournament.

The US Supreme Court heard oral presentations on April 25, 2024, in a case that can change the course of American history. This is the case Trump vs. the United Stateswhich asked justices to make a decision whether and to what extent former President Donald Trump — or another president — may be prosecuted for actions committed while in office.

The case particularly pertains to special prosecutor Jack Smith accuses Trump of attempting to undermine the 2020 presidential election. But the court's decision may also apply to larger questions on the bounds of presidential power and the role of the legal system in limiting executive actions.

Interview with political editor Naomi Schalit Constitutional lawyer Claire Wofforda political scientist on the College of Charleston who said the impact of the case went beyond Trump's case and affected “how future presidencies might work.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “We're writing a rule for the ages.” The justices seemed well aware that the case before them was about former President Donald Trump, however it was also about lots greater than that, right?

I’d absolutely agree with that. The justices expressed several concerns in regards to the impact of the choice on this case. Several of the justices, across the ideological spectrum, were very concerned in regards to the practical implications of granting some extent of immunity to a president or not granting immunity to the president.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed genuinely concerned that the president might be politically persecuted if he weren’t protected by immunity. Alito spoke of the president being in a “particularly precarious situation.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh also appeared to contemplate the implications of a finding of the president’s lack of immunity, raising the specter of what he called “cycles” of prosecutions.

On the opposite hand, several more liberal justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan questioned what it will mean if the president actually had immunity – whether that may mean unfettered executive power. Jackson, particularly, talked about how we shouldn't worry that the president would soften his actions if he were potentially prosecuted.

“I think we would have a significant opposite problem if the president wasn't relaxed,” she said. She said a president could take office “in the knowledge that there is no risk of punishment for committing crimes.” She said: “I'm trying to understand what the reason is for making the Oval Office the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

It gave the look of everyone from Trump and Justice Department lawyers to the judges themselves wanted to seek out a middle ground that may grant the president some, but not complete, immunity.

It didn't appear to me that any of the justices desired to conclude that the president was absolutely immune or that the president could all the time be prosecuted. There will likely be a gray area through which a few of what a president does could also be criminal, but others may not. There was a whole lot of forwards and backwards about what line must be drawn.

The judges need to give you the option to make a distinction in order that a president can obviously be held criminally responsible in certain extreme situations. But a few of what he does simply needs to be considered a part of his core job as a frontrunner and is at his discretion.

If they go this route, they may try to formulate a legal regime that attracts the road between what’s protected against prosecution and what is just not. There were many options for this line that were placed on the table in the course of the argument. It doesn't appear to me that one or the opposite clear position was taken within the dispute. But if the judges tried to formulate a rule, I wouldn't expect a fast verdict.

Isn't there one other scenario where they don't go into a fancy description of what's on this side of the road and what's on that side?

Several of the justices noted that even in the event that they ruled that a few of Trump's actions were official and subsequently protected by immunity, the trial could still proceed in relation to his private actions, which each side agree on. In the top, Jackson made it clear when he asked the Justice Department attorney whether the president had taken enough private actions that the case could go to trial on those actions alone. The lawyer said yes.

What is the deeper meaning of today's argument when considering the role and power of the president?

Today's dispute touches on the balance of power between Congress, the chief branch and the judiciary. Trump's lawyer argued that, for reasons of functionality, the chief branch will need to have an area through which it may well act alone and that the judiciary has no strategy to monitor its activities. The case also involves broader questions on checks and balances and the way the framers intended our government to operate. In the background is the broader query of the rule of law and whether or not certain people – including those charged with implementing and executing this law – are also subject to it.

George Washington was sworn in because the nation's first president on March 4, 1797. From then until now, the concept of ​​a president violating criminal law has not been addressed within the U.S. Supreme Court. What does that tell us?

It tells us certainly one of two things. Firstly, the system we’ve got works. This is the Justice Department's argument that the explanation we've never been in this case is because we've never had a president like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump can also be the sort of character we've never had or because presidents knew they might be prosecuted and were subsequently constrained of their behavior.

From the choice side, in fact, the argument is that we've never had this before, because nobody has ever pursued a president with such political vehemence, and nobody has ever desired to eliminate a president as badly as President Trump. I feel the apparent downside can be that this really isn't an accurate reading of American history. Many presidents were hated by their political opponents, who tried to eliminate them in a method or one other.

We are at a turning point in history where the interface between the chief and judiciary is being put to an unprecedented test. And I hope that the judiciary does its job and the system stays intact.

I wish there was one other tool the court could use to resolve this query and that so many individuals didn't feel just like the fate of our government and the soundness of our system were at stake.

Is it?

This is the case when the court doesn’t do its job. If it doesn't clearly state that the president is just not above the law, then I feel we’ve got a significant issue.