News
Lithuania Cargo Plane Crash Leaves One Dead, Three Injured
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f48e2/f48e2ded767645c33acd2ed649aa78956e57bfe4" alt=""
A tragic cargo plane crash near Vilnius Airport in Lithuania has claimed one life and left three others injured. The Boeing 737-400, operated for DHL by Spanish airline Swiftair, went down in the early hours of Monday as it approached its final landing.
The aircraft, flying from Leipzig, Germany, crashed approximately 1.3 km (0.8 miles) north of the runway around 04:30 local time (02:30 GMT). The plane reportedly struck infrastructure near a residential property, causing a fire. Firefighters swiftly evacuated 12 residents from the house, which sustained minor damage.
The deceased was identified as one of the four crew members onboard. Lithuanian authorities confirmed that all other passengers and residents in the vicinity were accounted for.
Emergency responders worked to contain the fire, with firefighters seen battling smoke at the crash site. Despite the proximity of the crash to the airport, Vilnius Airport operations have continued without disruption.
DHL confirmed ownership of the 31-year-old aircraft and stated that the crash occurred during an “emergency landing.” Investigations are underway to determine the cause of the crash, with authorities noting no signs of an explosion prior to impact.
Before the crash, weather conditions in the area were reported as cold, with temperatures at 0°C (32°F), light winds of 30 km/h (19 mph), and cloudy skies. These factors, alongside the plane’s age and other operational details, will form part of the ongoing investigation.
Renatas Pozela, head of Lithuania’s firefighting and emergency services unit, confirmed that the crash caused limited structural damage but highlighted the swift evacuation of residents as a key success in preventing further casualties.
News
Australian Nurses Suspended Over Antisemitic Video Amid National Crackdown on Hate Speech
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a094c/a094c10349cb80d463f7617adbf25a40c96b0b7b" alt=""
Two Australian nurses have been suspended after a video surfaced showing them making violent antisemitic remarks, including threats to harm Israeli patients. The incident, which allegedly took place at a hospital in Sydney, has sparked outrage and is now under police investigation.
New South Wales (NSW) Health Minister Ryan Park confirmed that the two individuals had been stood down immediately and would never work in the state’s healthcare system again. Authorities are conducting a thorough review of hospital records to ensure no patients were harmed, though a rapid preliminary check found nothing unusual.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the video as “sickening and shameful,” emphasizing that antisemitism has no place in Australia. His comments come just days after the country passed stricter hate crime laws in response to a surge in antisemitic incidents.
The video, shared online by Israeli content creator Max Veifer, appears to have been recorded in a hospital setting. In the footage, a man claiming to be a doctor tells Veifer he has “beautiful eyes” but adds, “I’m sorry you’re Israeli,” before making a throat-slitting gesture and stating he sends Israelis to “Jahannam” (an Islamic concept of hell). A woman later appears on screen, saying she refuses to treat Israelis and will “kill them” instead.
Despite the video being edited with emojis and censoring certain comments, authorities have not questioned its authenticity. NSW Police stated they have identified the individuals involved and are investigating whether criminal charges should be pursued.
Albanese vowed that anyone found guilty of committing hate crimes will “face the full force of our laws.” Park echoed this sentiment, apologizing to the Jewish community and reassuring them that NSW hospitals remain committed to providing “first-class” healthcare to all patients, regardless of background.
News
Coca-Cola May Increase Plastic Bottle Use Due to Trump’s Aluminium Tariffs
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/981e6/981e663b51f90109a00cd4c2410e7754706a42fd" alt=""
Coca-Cola has warned that it may have to increase the use of plastic bottles in the U.S. if President Donald Trump’s new tariffs make aluminium cans too expensive. The announcement was made by Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey during a call with investors.
Trump’s recent order imposes a 25% import tax on all steel and aluminium entering the U.S., a move expected to raise costs for canned food and beverage manufacturers. Quincey acknowledged that Coca-Cola could shift more emphasis to PET plastic bottles to manage affordability.
“If aluminium cans become more expensive, we can put more emphasis on PET bottles,” he said, while noting that packaging costs are only a small fraction of the company’s overall expenses.
This shift comes shortly after Coca-Cola scaled back its sustainability goal of using 50% recycled materials in its packaging by 2030, adjusting the target to 35-40% by 2035. The beverage giant has been under pressure from environmental groups, which have labeled it the world’s “top global plastic polluter” for six years in a row.
Aluminium cans, despite being pricier, are far more recyclable than plastic bottles. The U.S. imports nearly half of its aluminium, according to the United States Geological Survey, making the tariffs a significant factor in production costs. Unlike in 2018, when some can-makers received exemptions from similar tariffs, Trump has now ruled out any exceptions for products or countries.
In a separate move, Trump also signed an executive order rolling back efforts to replace plastic straws with paper alternatives in government facilities—undoing a policy introduced by former President Joe Biden, who had called plastic pollution a “crisis.”
News
U.S. Justice Department Orders Prosecutors to Drop Corruption Case Against NYC Mayor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3590b/3590b97efa8f141ababa38d80c57052a1ad9dcee" alt=""
The U.S. Justice Department has directed federal prosecutors to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, citing concerns that the indictment was hindering his ability to address illegal immigration and crime.
The directive came from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, who stated in a memo that no further investigative steps should be taken until after the 2025 mayoral election. The memo also instructed prosecutors to work toward restoring Adams’ security clearance.
Adams, a Democrat, has recently forged a closer relationship with Trump and ordered city law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration raids—a move that critics argue undermines New York’s sanctuary city policies. However, he denies having discussed his case with Trump.
Adams was indicted in September on five charges related to accepting over $100,000 in illegal gifts and campaign contributions from Turkish officials in exchange for political favors, including allegedly assisting with safety regulation exemptions for a Turkish consulate in New York. He has pleaded not guilty.
Despite the Justice Department’s order, prosecutors have not yet confirmed whether they will comply. Any decision to drop the case must be formally submitted to the court and approved by a judge.
The move has sparked concerns about political influence in the justice system. While Bove’s memo states that the decision does not assess the strength of the evidence against Adams, it acknowledges that his past criticism of immigration policies under the Biden administration “cannot be ignored.”
Adams, who attended Trump’s presidential inauguration and recently met with him in Florida, has faced backlash from Democratic leaders for aligning with the Republican president. Meanwhile, Trump has previously claimed that both he and Adams were “persecuted” for opposing Biden’s immigration policies.
The Justice Department’s decision to delay potential future prosecution until after the next mayoral election raises questions about the case’s trajectory and whether it may be revisited under a new administration.