Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Itch! thrusts viewers into a nightmarish scenario where a hyper‑contagious disease forces victims to scratch themselves to death. The film’s most striking moment features a woman literally tearing her own skin, a set‑piece that showcases the director’s knack for visceral body‑horror despite a shoestring budget. The narrative then shifts to a cramped department store, where a rag‑tag group of uninfected shoppers must endure a claustrophobic dialogue‑driven showdown. While the premise echoes classic confinement thrillers such as John Carpenter’s The Thing and Assault on Precinct 13, the limited resources prevent the film from fully capitalising on these influences. Critics note that a larger budget could have amplified the already effective practical effects, and a tighter script would have deepened the human drama. The ensemble includes a widowed father (played by director‑screenwriter Bari Kang) juggling single‑parenthood, a cantankerous customer (portrayed by Douglas Stirling) who complains about price‑matching on Amazon, and several other archetypal figures. However, the screenplay struggles to give each character a distinct emotional arc, leaving audiences at a distance. Despite these shortcomings, the film’s core concept—an epidemic of fatal itching—offers a fresh angle for the under‑served eczema community and delivers moments of genuine horror. Itch! becomes as much a character study as a genre piece, though the balance tilts unevenly. The movie is available on UK digital platforms from 20 April 2026 and on US digital platforms from 21 April 2026.

The relationship between Britain and Israel has come under scrutiny as the UK government faces criticism for its response to Israel's actions in Lebanon and the West Bank. A recent report revealed that Donald Trump asked Benjamin Netanyahu to be more 'low-key' in Lebanon, sparking concerns about the international community's stance on the issue.As someone who is Palestinian Lebanese, the author notes that the West Bank is often overlooked, allowing the killing and dispossession to continue quietly. In contrast, Lebanon has garnered more attention due to the scale of violence, with 300 people killed in just 10 minutes. The message from Washington, it seems, is to keep the actions quiet and take the land without drawing attention.Britain's response has been condemnation, but critics argue that words are not enough. The UK's continued preferential trade terms with Israel and supply of components for warplanes and weapons systems used in strikes have raised questions about its complicity. The author asks, 'What has to happen before our government acts – rather than simply condemns?'The issue has sparked a wider conversation about the role of governments in addressing human rights abuses and the need for more concrete action. As one reader noted, 'When Trump destroys the world those who are left will look at one another and wonder why nobody stopped him.'

"Bloody unacceptable" – those were the words of UN humanitarian chief Denise Brown as she condemned the failure to halt a war that has now entered its fourth year. The conflict, which began with rival generals overthrowing Sudan’s civilian leadership, has eclipsed global crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, yet remains largely ignored. The Berlin‑hosted international conference aims to inject urgency into a situation where tens of thousands have been killed, four million have fled abroad, and millions more are internally displaced. Roughly 30 million Sudanese – more than half the population – now face acute food insecurity, and large swathes of Khartoum lie in ruins. Violence has not abated. The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, have established a rival administration in western Sudan. In the siege of El Fasher, an estimated 10,000 civilians were massacred – a UN mission described the atrocity as bearing the hallmarks of genocide. Both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under Gen. Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan have deliberately targeted civilians, carried out summary executions, tortured detainees and increasingly employed drones to devastate urban areas. Gen. Burhan, whose government enjoys international recognition, refuses any compromise, insisting the RSF must first disarm and retreat to camps before any national dialogue. The RSF, meanwhile, demands a new federal system and the removal of Islamist elements – a stance that directly challenges Burhan’s coalition. In September, a US‑led mediation team that included Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt outlined a tentative roadmap: a humanitarian truce leading to a cease‑fire and subsequent political talks. Yet the United States has shown little appetite to prioritize Sudan, and the plan sidestepped the most contentious issues. The deeper scandal, according to diplomats and analysts, is the role of external actors in sustaining the war. Despite denials, the UAE is widely reported as the principal backer of the RSF, while Saudi Arabia and Egypt back Burhan’s forces. Recent Yale research points to Ethiopian collusion with the RSF, raising fears of a broader regional conflagration. European states, which previously funded Sudanese security to curb migration, have inadvertently strengthened the RSF and supplied weapons now used on the battlefield. The ongoing Iran‑Israel conflict further hampers relief efforts, inflating costs and limiting aid deliveries. Community kitchens that once fed countless families are disappearing – more than 40 % have closed in the past six months. The Berlin delegates must therefore boost support for Sudan’s grassroots mutual‑aid networks, but humanitarian assistance cannot replace a durable peace. Pressure on the UAE and other geopolitically motivated actors is essential if the international community hopes to halt the suffering of millions of Sudanese.

The European Union is set to implement a sweeping reform of steel import duties from July, doubling tariffs and halving duty‑free quotas in an effort to stem a surge of low‑priced Chinese steel. EU lawmakers approved the measures after late‑night negotiations, targeting a 47% reduction in quota allowances. While exact country allocations remain pending, the policy will apply to all non‑EEA members, leaving Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein exempt. EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné hailed the deal as the "strongest ever" safeguard for European steel, framing it as a victory for domestic mills, workers and industrial sovereignty. European steel lobbyist Axel Eggert of Eurofer argued the steps will create space for EU producers to add 15 million extra tonnes of steel to meet local demand, thereby pulling the sector "back from the brink". Recent import data underscore the urgency: steel inflows rose to a record 9.9 million tonnes in the final quarter of 2025, up from 7.4 million tonnes a year earlier. The new regime will cap total EU steel imports at 18.7 million tonnes annually, with quotas to be negotiated across 28 product categories. For the United Kingdom, the timing is critical. The EU remains the UK's largest steel market, absorbing roughly 1.8 million tonnes of British steel each year—about 10% of the new quota. UK Steel, the industry body, warned that a failure to secure reciprocal quota access could cripple export flows. Britain is preparing its own counter‑measures, announcing a 50% tariff on third‑country steel imports from 1 July and a 60% cut to its own quotas, a stricter stance than the EU’s 47% reduction. Union representatives echo the alarm. The Community union described the EU quotas as an "existential threat" to British steel and urged the Labour government to guard against a potential "tide of diverted steel" entering the UK market. Both sides acknowledge the deep integration of their steel sectors. Eurofer’s deputy director Karl Tachelet called for preferential treatment for the UK, emphasizing that the two industries share a common interest in avoiding punitive measures. As negotiations unfold, the outcome will shape not only the future of European steel production but also the broader post‑Brexit trade relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom.

Endless Cookie arrives as a daring, hand‑crafted animation that immerses viewers in the everyday chaos of a Canadian Cree household in the remote Shamattawa First Nation. The project, conceived and voiced by half‑brothers Seth and Peter Scriver, took nine years to complete, a fact the film humorously acknowledges through its meta‑narrative and frequent self‑parody. The visual style feels like a cross between Cheech and Chong antics and the digressive storytelling of Tristram Shandy, with scenes that oscillate between vivid surrealism and grounded family moments. From a post‑apocalyptic Toronto backdrop to a sprawling story map described as “bulging like a distended colon,” the animation pushes the boundaries of conventional indie filmmaking. Beyond its eccentric humor, the film tackles weighty themes with a wry yet respectful tone. It shines a light on police racism and historic land theft, while celebrating ancestral continuity and community resilience. The narrative deliberately sidesteps the Scrivers' own cultural positions, allowing the Indigenous perspective to remain front and centre. Key vignettes include a chaotic caribou stakeout, a punk‑era flashback to 1980s Toronto, and a bizarre encounter with a clingy snowy owl—each episode underscored by the presence of the family’s twelve dogs, two of which are humorously named Cheech and Chong. The film’s funding source even appears as a talking slide rule, adding another layer of self‑referential comedy. Critics have likened the animation’s energy to a “SpongeBob SquarePants episode after an afternoon of smoking DMT,” while also noting its lineage to the counter‑cultural spirit of Fritz the Cat. The result is a work that feels both hallucinatory and deeply affectionate toward its subjects. Endless Cookie becomes available for streaming on Mubi starting 17 April, offering audiences a rare glimpse into a vibrant, self‑determined Indigenous narrative that challenges mainstream cinematic conventions.

In a forceful statement released on Monday, a panel of 13 United Nations experts demanded that Israel halt all attacks on displaced Palestinians sheltering in Gaza and cease the accelerating forced‑displacement campaign in the occupied West Bank. Israeli air strikes in March set fire to tents housing Gaza’s internally displaced people, causing numerous fatalities, the experts noted, describing the tactic as part of a broader strategy to make life untenable for Palestinians. “This cycle of displacement, terror, and targeted attacks serves an ultimate purpose: to make life unbearable for Palestinians and permanently force them from their land,” the panel declared, underscoring the systematic nature of the violence. The experts warned that the targeting of makeshift shelters violates international humanitarian law and amounts to a grave breach, given that the majority of Gaza’s population has already endured multiple forced transfers. Beyond the immediate danger of bombardment, civilians living in tents face severe health threats—including hunger, exposure to freezing temperatures, flooding, and a lack of basic services. Women and children, the panel stressed, bear a disproportionate share of deprivation. Turning to the West Bank, the panel condemned what it described as a “sharp escalation in forced displacement” driven by the Israeli army and “state‑backed settler terrorism.” Daily attacks have resulted in killings, injuries, and the widespread destruction of homes, farmland, and livelihoods. According to a 2025 report from the UN Human Rights Office, more than 36,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced amid the expansion of illegal settlements, a figure the experts say illustrates a broader policy of ethnic cleansing across the occupied Palestinian territory. The panel urged Israel to end all forced‑displacement activities in the West Bank and to facilitate the safe return of those uprooted. It also called on the international community to uphold its legal obligations, launch independent investigations, and refrain from providing assistance that could enable the continuation of the occupation. The 13‑member panel includes UN special rapporteurs such as Francesca Albanese (occupied Palestinian territory), Paula Gaviria Betancur (rights of internally displaced persons), Michael Fakhri (right to food), and Reem Alsalem (violence against women and girls).

The European Union has issued a stern warning that peace in the region is impossible while Lebanon is gripped by crisis. The statement comes amid escalating tensions and instability in the country.According to the EU, the ongoing turmoil in Lebanon poses a significant threat to regional peace and stability. The international community has been closely monitoring the developments in Lebanon, with many expressing concerns over the potential for further escalation.The EU's statement underscores the complexity of the situation in Lebanon and the need for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. The organization has called for calm and restraint from all parties involved, emphasizing the importance of finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

The United States, led by President Donald Trump, has announced its intention to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global energy supplies, in a significant escalation of tensions with Iran. This move comes after talks between Washington and Tehran in Islamabad failed to yield an agreement.In a social media post, Trump stated that the US Navy would begin the process of blockading any and all ships attempting to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. The blockade, which commenced at 10am Washington, DC, time (14:00 GMT) on Monday, has sparked concerns about the status of the two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran announced last week.Analysts view Trump’s threat as a substantial escalation in the war on Iran. Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York, noted that Trump is using the blockade as a tool in negotiations with Iran, aiming to pressure the country to comply with US goals.The blockade could have far-reaching implications for global energy markets, as the Strait of Hormuz is a critical passage for 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies. Iran has allowed ships from certain countries to pass through the strait during the conflict, but a blockade could disrupt these supplies.Jason Chuah, professor of maritime law at City St George’s, University of London, described the US actions as “sanctions with warships doing the bidding of President Trump,” rather than a classic blockade. He raised concerns about the legality of such actions under international maritime law, noting that the US is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.The international community remains divided on the issue, with the United Kingdom stating it will not support the blockade and China urging calm. The blockade’s impact on Iranian mines in the strait and shipping operations remains uncertain, with potential consequences for global energy security and the economy.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared that the United Kingdom will not participate in the United States’ proposed blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, distancing London from President Donald Trump’s latest escalation against Iran.Speaking on BBC Radio, Starmer said, "We are not supporting the blockade," and added that the UK will not be "dragged into the US‑Israel war on Iran."The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic chokepoint through which about 20 % of the world’s oil supplies transit in peacetime. Starmer stressed that reopening the waterway is vital for global energy security and that the UK’s diplomatic efforts over recent weeks have focused on that goal.Meanwhile, the US Central Command announced it would block all maritime traffic entering or leaving Iranian ports from 14:00 GMT, though it provided few details on how the blockade would be enforced. The statement claimed the action would be applied impartially to vessels of all nations, yet it also noted that ships bound for non‑Iranian ports would not be impeded.President Trump, in a lengthy social‑media post, framed the operation as a mission to clear mines and prevent Iran from profiting from control of the strait.In a parallel diplomatic move, French President Emmanuel Macron said France and the United Kingdom will convene a conference in the coming days aimed at restoring freedom of navigation, reaffirming that “no diplomatic effort will be spared” to end the US‑Israel conflict over Iran.Nicole Grajewski, an assistant professor at Sciences Po, warned that the US blockade constitutes “more than a minor coercive signal” and effectively marks a resumption of hostilities.Other allies echoed criticism: Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles called the plan “makes no sense,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan urged “negotiations with Iran and the swift reopening of the strait,” and Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun emphasized that the strait’s security is “in the common interest of the international community.”Starmer’s stance reflects a careful balancing act—maintaining NATO solidarity while refusing to endorse direct military pressure on Iran—highlighting the complex geopolitics surrounding one of the world’s most crucial maritime corridors.