What to Know About the New ‘Jihadi John’

British Indian Siddhartha Dhar is now believed to be the masked executioner who is depicted killing five hostages in a new ISIS video, after the BBC cited an unnamed official saying that Dhar, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Rumaysah, is the focus of a probe into the video.

This has led some to dub him the new “Jihadi John,” the same nickname given to the British-born ISIS executioner later identified as Mohammed Emwazi, who is believed to have been killed in an airstrike late last year.

Here’s what you need to know about the person alleged to be the new man behind the mask.

Who is he?

Dhar, who was known as ‘Sid’ to friends, enjoyed drinking, loved the bands Nirvana and Linkin Park, and had dreams of becoming a dentist, the Daily Mail reports, citing interviews with his family. After his father died when he was 16, Dhar, who is from London, dropped out of school and later became a bounce house salesman. He reportedly converted Islam in his late-teen years and eventually joined the banned radical group al-Muhajiroun. He married his wife Aisha Tariq, and went on to have five children with her.

What did he do after becoming radicalized?

Dhar went on to become a prolific figure among radical Islamists in London, frequently attending demonstrations against the U.S., Israel, Arab regimes or or any other cause the group believed to be un-Islamic, the BBC reports. He was also known to stand outside mosques on Friday afternoons with the aim of recruiting new followers to al-Muhajiroun’s radical way of thinking. Dhar, who is now believed to be 32, has spoken openly about his extremist views to the BBC, CBS News and Vice prior to fleeing the U.K. During a BBC debate on why British Muslims were joining ISIS, Dhar said: “For 90 years we have been without a caliphate and many of the rules within the Koran cannot be implemented. … As a Muslim I would like to see the U.K. governed by the Sharia. It is far superior to democracy. I don’t really identify myself with British values. I am Muslim first, second and last.”

What led him to ISIS?

Dhar was arrested in September 2014 alongside radical preacher Anjem Choudary for encouraging terrorism and supporting the banned group al-Muhajiroun. Just hours after he was granted bail, the Telegraph reports, Dhar caught a bus to Paris with his family and then travelled into Syria, where he joined ISIS. He boasted of his escape, on a Twitter account that has since been suspended, by posting a photo of himself, purportedly taken in Syria, of him holding a rifle while cradling his newborn son. “What a shoddy security system Britain must have to allow me to breeze through Europe to the Islamic State,” he wrote in the tweet.

Is he definitely the man in the video?

His family doesn’t think so. Upon hearing the audio of ISIS’s latest video, his sister Konika Dhar told the the BBC that she feared the masked murderer was her brother. “I was in a state of shock,” she said. “I believed the audio to resemble, from what I remember, the voice of my brother but having viewed the short clip in detail, I wasn’t entirely convinced which put me at ease.” Konikha, who lived in London, later told the Press Association: “I examined the features – one eye is smaller than the other, my brother has symmetrical eyes. The eyebrows are bushy and this guy is taller, my brother is shorter and he has got broader shoulders, but he has got stooped shoulders so I don’t think it is.” She said she would “kill him” if the masked executioner was indeed him.

Obama announces gun plan, says firearm lobby 'can't hold America hostage'

President Barack Obama was reduced to tears Tuesday as he recalled the lives of children killed by gun violence in America, and resolved to keep firearms away from those who shouldn’t have them through executive action that would bypass an Republican-led Congress that had proved intransigent on the issue.

With tears running down his cheeks, Obama said that every time he thinks of the first-graders murdered in a mass shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, it gets him mad. “By the way, it happens in the streets of Chicago every day,” he added in reference to the daily toll of gun violence in cities across America.

In an emotional address that follows a spate of deadly mass shootings, the president unveiled array of measures aimed at tightening gun controls that he intends to force through using his presidential powers in lieu of political willingness in Congress to pass any such laws.

Obama accused the gun lobby of taking Congress hostage, but said: "they cannot hold America hostage." He insisted it was possible to uphold the Second Amendment while doing something to tackle the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. that he said had become "the new normal."

"This is not a plot to take away everybody's guns," Obama said in a ceremony in the East Room. "You pass a background check, you purchase a firearm. The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules."

But the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded to the president's comments by tweeting: "president obama's executive orders will do nothing to improve public safety." 

House Speaker Paul Ryan says no matter what unilateral action President Barack Obama takes on gun control, "his word does not trump the Second Amendment."

At the centerpiece of Obama's plan is a broader definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks.

At firearm shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone "in the business" of selling firearms.

They put sellers on notice that the government planned to beef up enforcement —including with 230 new examiners the FBI will hire to process background checks.

The impact of Obama's plan on gun violence remains a major question, and one not easily answered. Had the rules been in place in the past, the steps wouldn't likely have prevented any of the recent mass shootings that have garnered national attention. The Obama administration acknowledged it couldn't quantify how many gun sales would be newly subjected to background checks, nor how many currently unregistered gun sellers would have to obtain a license.

Pushing back on that critique, Obama said every time the issue is debated, gun rights groups argue the steps wouldn't necessarily have stopped the last massacre, "so why bother trying?"

More recent gun-related atrocities, including in San Bernardino, California, have spurred the administration to give the issue another look, as Obama seeks to make good on a policy issue that he's elevated time and again but has failed until now to advance.

"Instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our more polarizing, partisan debates," Obama said, adding that the nation should come together "not to debate the last mass shooting, but to try to prevent the next one."  

The measures, however, fall far short of what Obama had hoped to accomplish through legislation after a massacre at a Connecticut elementary school shook the country in 2012. Yet even the more modest steps the president will announce rely on murky interpretations of existing law that could be easily reversed by his successor.

Obama's actions ensure that gun rights — one of the most bitterly divisive issues in America — will be at the forefront of the 2016 presidential campaign, which begins in earnest next month with the first primary contests.

Accusing Obama of gross overreach, many of the Republican presidential candidates have vowed to rip up the new gun restrictions upon taking office. Even before the president's speech on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush released a video ad, stating he was a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment." 

"I will fight as hard as I can against any effort by this president or by any liberal that wants to take away people’s rights that are embedded in the Bill of Rights, embedded in the constitution," Bush said in the ad. 

But Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton said she was proud of Obama's efforts and promised she would safeguard them. A spate of appalling mass shootings has inflamed passions in the U.S. over the subject of guns.

After 20 children and six educators were killed in Sandy Hook Elementary school three years ago, Obama sought far-reaching, bipartisan gun legislation. When the effort collapsed in the Senate, the White House said it was thoroughly researching the president's powers to identify every legal step he could take on his own.

Public opinion polls show Americans overwhelmingly support expanding background checks for gun purchases, but are more divided on the broader question of stricter gun laws.

About a third of Americans live in a household where at least one person owns a gun. Particularly in rural areas where firearms are a way of life, many citizens do not believe gun laws should be made stricter. The reverse is true in urban areas, where majorities want tighter firearm regulations.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other top officials declined to explain why Obama hadn't taken these steps years ago and whether the administration had contemplated these actions in the past but determined Obama didn't have the authority.

"We're very comfortable that the president can legally take these actions now," said Lynch.

Under current law, only federally licensed gun dealers must conduct background checks on buyers, but many who sell guns at flea markets, on websites or in other informal settings don't register as dealers. Gun control advocates say that loophole is exploited to skirt the background check requirement.

Now, the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will issue updated guidance that says the government should deem anyone "in the business" of selling guns to be a dealer, regardless of where he or she sells the guns. To that end, the government will consider other factors, including how many guns a person sells, how frequently, and whether those guns are sold for a profit.

The background check provision rests in the murky realm of agency "guidelines," which carry less weight than formally issued federal regulations and can easily be rescinded. Lynch said the administration chose to clarify guidelines because it allowed the policies to be implemented immediately. Left unsaid was the fact that developing regulations would have dragged out likely until Obama's presidency ends and would generate more opportunities for Republicans to intervene. 

Pastor Cleared Over 'Satanic Islam' Sermon

Pastor James McConnell, 78, from Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle in Belfast, had described Islam as "satanic", "heathen" and "a doctrine spawned in hell".

Pastor McConnell outside the court last month

He was charged under the Communications Act (2003) because the sermon, which he preached in May 2014, was streamed online.

In a landmark case, he denied charges of making improper use of a public electronics communications network and of causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network. 

During a three-day trial last month, Pastor McConnell told Belfast Magistrates Court he still believed what he had preached and did not go into church to "provoke anyone".

He said: "I was attacking the theology of Islam. I was not attacking any individual Muslim." 

Summing up their case, the prosecution said Pastor McConnell, of Shore Road, Newtownabbey, was "not on trial for his beliefs" but for what he said.

"He intended to use those words. It wasn't a slip of the tongue," said David Russell QC.

But a defence barrister argued Pastor McConnell was a man with an unblemished record who should be recognised for his good work in society, not convicted in court.

Delivering his verdict, District Judge Liam McNally said: "The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances."

ution Service said in a statement: "It is clear from the judgement that the court considered Pastor McConnell had a case to answer and that the decision on whether the comment was offensive or grossly offensive was not only finely balanced but one for the court and the court alone to take."

Pastor McConnell received support from two unlikely sources: one from an Imam and one from one of Northern Ireland’s best known atheists.

Dr Al-Hussaini, a Muslim cleric from London, said he did not agree with what the pastor said but defended his right to say it.

Boyd Sleator, chairman of Atheist NI, said that although the pastor's words lacked "sense or reasoning", society at large should not criminalise things simply because some people find them offensive.

Commenting on the acquittal of Pastor McConnell, Peter Lynas, national director of the Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland, said: "Today's verdict is a victory for common sense and freedom of speech.

"However, until the law is changed or clear guidance is issued there will still be concern about further prosecution. The Public Prosecution Service need to explain why this case was brought and assure everyone that this will not happen again.

"This case contains challenges to both the State and the Church. It is vital that the State does not stray into the censorship of Church sermons or unwittingly create a right not to be offended. Meanwhile, the Church must steward its freedom of speech responsibly so as to present Jesus in a gracious and appealing way to everyone."

Make Your Facebook Profile More Private in 6 Easy Steps

Managing Facebook’s labyrinthine privacy settings is an ongoing challenge, not least because the options available to users are constantly changing. The social network has given people increasingly granular control over where their posts are shown and what pieces of personal data are used to serve ads. But these additional options have also made managing Facebook privacy even more confusing. 

Here, we’ve put together a six-step guide to locking down your Facebook account as best as possible. 

Step 1: See What Your Public Profile Looks Like

The first thing you’ll want to do is figure out how much of your Facebook info strangers can see. To do so, go to your profile page and click the three dots in the bottom right corner of your cover photo. In the dropdown menu that appears, click “View as.”

This will take you to a version of your Facebook page that appears the way it does to users who are not your friends. Certain information, like your name, current profile picture and cover photo, will always be viewable by strangers. But you can determine who sees other kinds of content. Try scrolling through your profile page in this view to see how many of your posts are publicly viewable to people who aren’t your friends.

Step 2: Decide Who Can See Your Posts

During Step 1 you may discover you’ve inadvertently been sharing posts with everyone on Facebook. Every time you make a post, Facebook gives you the chance to quickly decide which audience to share it with. 

To the left of the “Post” button, you’ll see a box that shows who will be able to see a given piece of content. Click the box to choose an audience from a drop-down menu—the most common are “Only Me,” “Friends,” and “Public” (which includes anyone on or off Facebook). You can also share posts with people in your current city or create custom lists. That lets you share your baby photos only with family members, for instance.

Whatever audience you select for a certain post becomes the default going forward. So if you make one “Public” post, Facebook will default to making all your posts “Public” thereafter. If you find you’ve inadvertently been making too many posts Public, Facebook also has an option buried in its settings to retroactively make old posts more private. Click the down arrow in the top right corner of Facebook, then select “Settings” from the drop down menu. On the Settings screen, click “Privacy” in the left-hand rail, then select “Limit Past Posts” in the “Who Can See My Stuff?” section.

Step 3: Get Rid of Intrusive Apps

Over the years you’ve likely given dozens of apps permission to access your Facebook data in order to quickly login or pull up a roster of contacts. Facebook’s been keeping track of all those apps, and now gives you the ability to restrict particular apps’ access to information.

On the Settings screen, select “Apps” in the left-hand rail. You’ll be presented with a grid of all your Facebook-authenticated apps. Click any app and you’ll see an itemized list of every piece of personal information you share with the app, ranging from your birth date to your photos to your location. You can choose to stop sharing any individual data point or remove the app’s connection to your Facebook account outright. You can also turn off an app’s ability to send you Facebook notifications. That could prevent you from continuing to get annoying updates about your aunt’s Candy Crush habit, for instance.

Step 4: Make Yourself Harder to Find

Facebook made all user profiles searchable back in 2013, making it easier for other people to find you on the site. But users still have the ability to stop Google and other search engines from listing their profiles in search results.

On the Settings screen, select “Privacy” in the left-hand rail, then answer “No” to the final question listed, “Do you want search engines outside of Facebook to link to your profile?” On the same screen you can also choose whether you want anyone to be able to send you friend requests or only friends of friends.

Step 5: See Ads That Don’t Leverage Your Personal Data (As Much)

Facebook tracks your browsing habits across the Internet and uses this data to serve you more personalized ads. If that sounds creepy to you, you can tell the company to stop. In the Settings menu, click “Ads” on the left-hand rail. The first section deals with what Facebook calls “online interest-based ads.” If you turn this setting off, you’ll still see the same number of ads, but they won’t be tailored to your Web history off of Facebook. All your actions on Facebook are still fair game for serving targeted ads, though.

Just below this option is a setting to turn off ads paired with your social actions. When this setting is on, Facebook uses your Likes and shares to make ads in other people’s News Feeds more appealing. So if you like the Doritos page, that information might appear alongside a Doritos sponsored post in a friend’s feed without your knowledge. Select “no one” in this section and Facebook won’t use your Likes in this way.

Step 6: Block Troublesome Users

You can block specific users by selecting the “Blocking” option on the left-hand rail of the Settings menu. You can block users outright, meaning the users can’t see your profile or add you as a friend. You can also block users from doing specific actions, like sending you event invites or app game invites (again, good for that Candy Crush-addicted aunt). Also note that there’s a separate blocking option for Facebook Messenger on this settings page as well.

Users can also add users to a “Restricted List” on this page. Anyone on the list will only be able to see the posts and information you share with the entire public—and they won’t know they’ve been placed on this list. So if you want your co-workers to see your helpful Facebook privacy articles and not your raucous party photos, you might consider placing them on this list (and labeling certain posts “Public” as needed).

Obama Unveils New Gun Control Measures

Flanked by family members of people killed by gun violence, Mr Obama said constant excuses for inaction "no longer suffice".

The President, who has made strengthening gun laws a central focus heading into his final year in office, accused the gun lobby of taking Congress hostage, but said "they cannot hold America hostage."

"We can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment," Mr Obama said in reference to Americans' constitutional right to bear arms.

The President announced four initiatives on Tuesday that he said will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Among them are requirements for more gun sellers to obtain licenses and more gun buyers to undergo background checks.

"We've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules," Mr Obama said in an address in the White House East Room.

"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Mr Obama's expansion on background checks will require anyone selling a gun, whether at a gun show or over the internet, to conduct checks on potential buyers.

The President also outlined a plan to ask Congress for $500m to expand access to treatment for mental illness across the country.

He also announced expansions on government research into gun safety measures, particularly "smart gun technology".

"If we can make it possible to unlock a phone with a fingerprint, why can't we do it with guns?" he said.

New ISIS Executioner Named as British Convert to Islam

A British Indian who converted to Islam has been named in British media as the masked man who appeared to kill five Syrian hostages in an ISIS video released this week.

Siddhartha Dhar, 32, also known as Abu Rumaysah, fled the U.K. with his wife and children after skipping bail in Sept. 2014, the BBC reports. He was under investigation for encouraging terrorism and supporting the a banned group.

The former inflatable castle salesman and father-of-four was a well-known figure among radical Islamists in London. Dhar, who used to be a Sikh, had spoken openly about radicalisation to both the BBC and CBS News prior to fleeing the U.K.

Dhar announced his arrival to an ISIS-held area in Syria in Nov. 2014 by posting an image of him holding his newborn son while brandishing a rife on Twitter. By May 2015, reports the Daily Mail, he published an online brochure for ISIS-held areas, likening it to a “plush holiday resort” as he describes its transportation, food, education, people and technology.

On hearing the audio of ISIS’s latest video, his sister Konika Dhar told the BBC that she feared the masked murderer would be her brother. Although, on watching the clip she is not “entirely convinced” that it is him.

“I was in a state of shock,” she toldBBC. “I believed the audio to resemble, from what I remember, the voice of my brother but having viewed the short clip in detail, I wasn’t entirely convinced which put me at ease.”

te long propaganda video released on Sunday, five men are seen ‘confessing’ to spying for the U.K. The video then cuts to them lined up in orange jumpsuits in the desert, where they are shot in the head by masked men.

Before the shooting a masked man with a British accent mocks U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron for challenging the group. He goes on to say: “We will continue to wage jihad, break borders and one day invade your land where we will rule by the Sharia.”

At the end of the clip a young boy in camouflage clothing is seen pointing into the distance and talking about “unbelievers” in a British accent. The toddler is believed to be Isa Dare, reports the Times of London, and the son of Grace “Khadijah” Dare who left for Syria in 2012 after converting to Islam.

His grandfather, Henry Dare, told The Sun that ISIS was using the small boy as a propaganda tool.

“That is my grandson, I’d know him anywhere. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the pictures. I felt sick” Dare told the Sun. “They are pure evil for doing this to that child — pure evil. I burst into tears when I saw it was him. He doesn’t like it there.”

Due to an ongoing investigation on the video, a spokesman for the U.K. Foreign Office would not confirm or deny the identity of the masked executioner.

What Sainsbury's Sees In Home Retail Group

Private equity buyers have been linked with either a bid for the entire company or some of its constituent parts - and more recently Wal-Mart, the owner of Asda, has also been touted as a potential buyer.

What no one expected was an approach from Sainsbury's, even though the pair have been partnering in an experiment for the last year, with 10 Sainsbury's stores playing host to digital in-store Argos concessions.

Many will regard this as a defensive move on the part of Sainsbury's in the face of growing competition in the grocery sector.

However, in its stock exchange announcement confirming the approach, Sainsbury's claims the deal will also provide a platform for growth.

It argues there is a strong rationale behind a tie-up, noting that it would bring together two respected and well-known businesses, capable of offering customers fast and reliable delivery across a range of platforms.

Argos has been investing heavily recently in a same-day delivery service aimed at seeing off the competitive threat from Amazon and, coupling this with Sainsbury's store network, this could quite easily form the UK's biggest "click and collect" proposition.

An artist's impression of one of the Argos concessions found in Sainsbury's

Interestingly, Sainsbury's also argues that a combination of the pair could also create a financial services proposition, offering a wider range of services than those available from its existing banking business.

But make no mistake - this would also be a deal in which cost-cutting would also loom large.

The combined store estates of these businesses would overlap considerably and, as Sainsbury's notes in its statement, there would be potential for rationalisation.

Britain's commercial landlords will be watching on nervously.

Others already burned by the news include the hedge funds: Home Retail Group is one of the most popular stocks in the market for "shorting" - selling shares that you do not own in a company in the hope of making a profit by buying them back later more cheaply - and several of them, including the likes of Odey and Marshall Wace, will have been hit by the sudden rally in Home Retail Group shares sparked by this announcement.

Not least the most intriguing aspect of any marriage, should it be consummated, is that it would bring Homebase back into the Sainsbury's stable.

The UK's second-largest do-it-yourself business was once owned by Sainsbury's but was sold to the old Great Universal Stores group, which later de-merged Home Retail Group, back in 2000 for £969m.

Such have been Home Retail Group's fortunes since that the combined business, even after a 30% jump in the share price sparked by the news of Sainsbury's interest, is now only valued at £990m.

It is perfectly possible that, should it succeed in buying Home Retail Group, Sainsbury's might well choose to offload Homebase to a private equity buyer.

Investors have never really been sold on the synergy benefits, in the jargon, of keeping it and Argos under one roof.

The real prize for Sainsbury's here will be the vast high street store estate Argos has - many of which could be converted into its convenience formats.

At the same time, it is easy to see how the larger out-of-town stores owned by Sainsbury's could be used to fuel Argos's click-and-collect proposition while benefiting from the increased numbers of customers visiting its stores that would create.

This approach also sends out another intriguing signal, namely the growing self-belief of Sainsbury's under its chief executive, Mike Coupe.

The retailer has, for some time, been outperforming the other members of the big four - Tesco, Asda and Morrisons - and this approach suggests Mr Coupe is confident of both continuing that and that his management team is capable of executing a big combination like this.