Thursday, December 8, 2016
Conservatives hold Sleaford and North Hykeham in by-election
Conservative Party candidate Caroline Johnson has won the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election.
Dr Johnson won 17,570 votes, beating UKIP's Victoria Ayling, who had 4,426.
In her acceptance speech, she said: "I look forward to strengthening the Government's majority in Parliament so Theresa May, our Prime Minister, can get on with the job of triggering Article 50, leaving the European Union and building a country and economy that works for everyone."
UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said it was "a great result" for his party, even though UKIP's share of the vote was 2.2 percentage points down on 2015.
He said: "If someone would have offered me second place at the beginning of the campaign, considering we were in the middle of a leadership election and the party resembled a bit of a shambles over the summer, I would have bitten their hand off."
Labour suffered a disappointing night - slipping from second place at the 2015 General Election to fourth, behind the Liberal Democrats.
Vernon Coaker, Labour MP for Gedling in Nottinghamshire, said: "It was a difficult seat. Let's remember this is a safe Tory seat, UKIP came here expecting to do much better than they did so it's a bad result for them.
"But clearly for us, this was not the result we might have hoped for."
Since it was formed in 1997, Sleaford and North Hykeham has only elected Tory MPs.
Tory Stephen Phillips had a majority of more than 24,000 votes in last year's General Election.
However, he quit in November citing "irreconcilable policy differences" with the Government's approach to Brexit.
Syria 'agrees to Aleppo ceasefire' to allow civilian escape, says Russia
The Syrian army has halted attacks on Aleppo to allow civilians to escape, according to the Russian government.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Bashar al Assad's forces had stopped airstrikes - despite the Syrian president saying earlier this week that he had rejected a plea from rebels to stop fighting.
According to Mr Lavrov, Mr Assad's position has changed.
Speaking following a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Germany, Mr Lavrov said: "I can tell you that today, combat operations by the Syrian army have been halted in eastern Aleppo because there is a large operation underway to evacuate civilians."
In an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan, Mr Assad said the possibility of a truce in Aleppo was "practically non-existent, of course".
Damascus is yet to react to Mr Lavrov's announcement, but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said fighting had eased following the deaths of 19 civilians on Wednesday.
An AFP correspondent in the east of the city backed up the claims, saying airstrikes had been halted and artillery fire was far less intense.
During a three-week offensive, government forces seized about 80% of east Aleppo, which has been a stronghold for rebel groups since 2012.
The US, UK and France have joined calls for a truce, warning of a "humanitarian catastrophe".
Overnight, more than 100 people who had been trapped amid heavy clashes in the city were taken to hospitals or shelters after being evacuated by Red Cross and Red Crescent aid workers.
Tens of thousands of children in Aleppo are "sitting targets" in the ongoing fighting, according to Save the Children Syria director Sonia Khush.
She said: "It defies belief that after nearly six years of suffering through this war, the international community is still willing to stand by as civilians are bombed with seeming impunity."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Bashar al Assad's forces had stopped airstrikes - despite the Syrian president saying earlier this week that he had rejected a plea from rebels to stop fighting.
According to Mr Lavrov, Mr Assad's position has changed.
Speaking following a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Germany, Mr Lavrov said: "I can tell you that today, combat operations by the Syrian army have been halted in eastern Aleppo because there is a large operation underway to evacuate civilians."
In an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan, Mr Assad said the possibility of a truce in Aleppo was "practically non-existent, of course".
Damascus is yet to react to Mr Lavrov's announcement, but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said fighting had eased following the deaths of 19 civilians on Wednesday.
An AFP correspondent in the east of the city backed up the claims, saying airstrikes had been halted and artillery fire was far less intense.
During a three-week offensive, government forces seized about 80% of east Aleppo, which has been a stronghold for rebel groups since 2012.
The US, UK and France have joined calls for a truce, warning of a "humanitarian catastrophe".
Overnight, more than 100 people who had been trapped amid heavy clashes in the city were taken to hospitals or shelters after being evacuated by Red Cross and Red Crescent aid workers.
Tens of thousands of children in Aleppo are "sitting targets" in the ongoing fighting, according to Save the Children Syria director Sonia Khush.
She said: "It defies belief that after nearly six years of suffering through this war, the international community is still willing to stand by as civilians are bombed with seeming impunity."
Robert the Bruce revealed in new images based on dug-up skull
Historians have digitally reconstructed the face of the Scottish king Robert the Bruce.
The images reflect evidence that the warrior king had leprosy which disfigured his nose and upper jaw.
The facial images were based on the cast of a human skull which was excavated in the 19th century from Robert the Bruce's burial site at Dunfermline Abbey.
Robert the Bruce was King of Scots from 1306 until his death in 1329.
His is one of Scottish history's most celebrated warriors, having defeated Edward II's English army at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314.
The reconstructed images depict a large and powerful head that would have been supported by a muscular neck and stocky frame.
However, historians believe the skull dug up in Dunfermline indicated Bruce suffered from an unidentified ailment, possibly leprosy, which laid him low several times during his reign and was the probable cause of his death.
The project to put a face to the skull was led by Dr Martin McGregor, a senior lecturer in Scottish history at the University of Glasgow.
He was inspired by the discovery of the skeleton of King Richard III of England beneath a car park in Leicester in 2012.
Dr McGregor said: "The case of Richard III revealed how far the technology had advanced.
"I saw an opportunity to apply the technology to the skull held here at Glasgow, first to test the credibility of its connection to Bruce and then to try to add to our knowledge of Scotland's greatest king."
The facial reconstruction was carried out by Professor Caroline Wilkinson from John Moores University.
She said: "Using the skull cast, we could accurately establish the muscle formation from the positions of the skull bones to determine the shape and structure of the face.
"But what the reconstruction cannot show is the colour of his eyes, his skin tones and the colour of his hair.
"We produced two versions - one without leprosy and one with a mild representation of leprosy.
"He may have had leprosy but, if he did, it is likely that it did not manifest strongly on his face, as this is not documented."
The images reflect evidence that the warrior king had leprosy which disfigured his nose and upper jaw.
The facial images were based on the cast of a human skull which was excavated in the 19th century from Robert the Bruce's burial site at Dunfermline Abbey.
Robert the Bruce was King of Scots from 1306 until his death in 1329.
His is one of Scottish history's most celebrated warriors, having defeated Edward II's English army at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314.
The reconstructed images depict a large and powerful head that would have been supported by a muscular neck and stocky frame.
However, historians believe the skull dug up in Dunfermline indicated Bruce suffered from an unidentified ailment, possibly leprosy, which laid him low several times during his reign and was the probable cause of his death.
The project to put a face to the skull was led by Dr Martin McGregor, a senior lecturer in Scottish history at the University of Glasgow.
He was inspired by the discovery of the skeleton of King Richard III of England beneath a car park in Leicester in 2012.
Dr McGregor said: "The case of Richard III revealed how far the technology had advanced.
"I saw an opportunity to apply the technology to the skull held here at Glasgow, first to test the credibility of its connection to Bruce and then to try to add to our knowledge of Scotland's greatest king."
The facial reconstruction was carried out by Professor Caroline Wilkinson from John Moores University.
She said: "Using the skull cast, we could accurately establish the muscle formation from the positions of the skull bones to determine the shape and structure of the face.
"But what the reconstruction cannot show is the colour of his eyes, his skin tones and the colour of his hair.
"We produced two versions - one without leprosy and one with a mild representation of leprosy.
"He may have had leprosy but, if he did, it is likely that it did not manifest strongly on his face, as this is not documented."
Social Media and “Fake News” from a free speech perspective
Recently, Facebook has been blamed for spreading “fake news” and contributing to the election of Donald Trump as the next US president. There have since been calls for Facebook to take action to address the issue and be treated as a media company in this regard. While tech giants hold considerable power over media and civic space, assigning them the mission of sorting out what constitutes “true” information is a dangerous route to take. What’s more, in the complex world we live in, even journalists and other contributors to the news should never be held liable for reporting “fake news” unless they have failed to dedicate reasonable efforts to verify information.
Reactions to the recent US presidential elections or the Brexit referendum are dominated by a sense that facts and rational debate have lost relevance in politics and public discourse. Lies seem to have become the decisive factor in today’s electoral contests. In an effort to preserve whatever is left from the democratic model of society, influential voices have called for a resolute battle to be fought against the viral spread of “fake” stories that infect populations with “dangerous” opinions. However, from the perspective of international law on freedom of expression, the issue of “fake news” must be approached with caution, mindful that prohibition of “fake” or “false” news has often served as an instrument to control the media and restrict editorial freedom.
The real problem with “fake news”
There’s no denying that misinformation exists. Unscrupulous businesses will publish deceitful reports to attract advertising income – to a lesser degree, this is also a preoccupation for certain media outlets that rely on sensationalist headlines. Others might publish lies to influence audiences in the pursuit of other political or economic objectives. In certain circumstances, however, the publication of deceitful information can cause serious harm. It could damage an individual’s reputation, violate their privacy or trigger disastrous collective reactions.
Nonetheless, restrictions on “fake news” are not the appropriate way to deal with these consequences. Existing laws on defamation, legal provisions that protect the right to privacy, and laws on public order that allow police forces to control the possible consequences of public outrage already provide some protection from negative impacts. All of these laws, of course, must respect the requirements of international standards on freedom of expression: in short, they need to be written with clarity to allow individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions, and they must be proportionate to the ill that they seek to counter. Even less restrictive of freedom of expression, the detailed prescriptions of professional ethics and mechanisms of self-regulation such as press councils also serve to encourage media and journalists to publish reliable and accurate information.
By contrast with finely-tailored legislation, any legal prohibition of “fake” news would inevitably create a chilling effect upon the media and anyone that contributes to public debate. Facts are by their nature complex and intricate, to the point that it is truly impossible to avoid slight inaccuracies in reporting. Demanding that journalists only publish reports that are absolutely true would simply be impractical. International case law has indeed recognised that journalists contributing to public debates on topics of general interest have the right to a certain degree of exaggeration or even provocation.
Enacting a legal duty of truth would provide public authorities with a powerful instrument to control journalistic activities: allowing public officials to decide what counts as truth is tantamount to accepting that the forces in power have a right to silence critical voices. Journalists or human rights defenders could be sent to prison on accusations of disseminating untrue statements about alleged wrongdoings by the government. Activists that use purposely misleading information to raise awareness through provocative stunts, such as the Yes Men, or satirical publications, such as The Onion or The New Yorker’s Borowitz Report, would be destined to a similar fate.
Like ‘hate speech’ or ‘terrorism’, the notion of “fake news” is too vague to prevent subjective and arbitrary interpretation. It would not be much reassurance to have private entities like Facebook making these assessments instead of public authorities – not to mention that these businesses may be subject to the influence of non-democratic governments in certain countries where they operate.
Social media and the news
Even if self-regulation and proportionate legislation might be sufficient to deal with cases of false information in the media, isn’t it true that social media platforms create echo chambers that can amplify the noise of fake news to unprecedented volumes? People who use online platforms as their main sources of news are surrounded by stories and rumours disseminated by others who share similar views to them. They lose contact with the vast diversity of opinions and ideas that exist in our complex societies, and they may even lose touch with good old-fashioned, factual reality.
One might first observe that the traditional media sphere has in itself always served as an echo chamber, as mainstream media companies routinely focus on the same few stories of the day. One might also note that the digital age has rendered the verification of facts easier than it ever was: manipulation of digital material can be investigated, and the Internet provides the infrastructure for checking sources and facts. Websites like Snopes or Hoaxbuster even specialise in debunking rumours. One must also acknowledge that social media platforms are incredibly efficient enablers of the individual right to freedom of expression.
But as J. Simon recently wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘Of course, there are many, many benefits to our current media environment. There is more news and information available more easily than at any time in human history. But there are downsides as well. Not only is it impossible to analyse and process the information, but trying to do so produces collective stress. Scientists studying human behaviour artificially create high-stress situations by bombarding their subjects with information. This environment is now replicated in our daily lives.’
Various ideas are being put forward to address social media platforms’ power over the visibility of media content and their influence on public debates. Tech giants are looking into new ways to verify information: relying on third-party organisations to identify “fake news” and refusing to serve advertising revenue to sources of misinformation. Influential media scholars also encourage social media companies to hire editors, not to produce media content, but, in the words of Jeff Jarvis, ‘to bring a sense of public responsibility to their companies and products.’
These proposals are certainly worthy of consideration, but times of uncertainty require caution: any attempt to deal with the influence of social media on the distribution of information and on public debates should be approached as a learning process for all parties involved. As discussed in our previous blog, this learning process is essential for democratic societies. As a collective experience, these initiatives should be open, participatory and transparent. All stakeholders – media companies, journalists, civil society, academia, and social media giants – should collaborate on projects to build a better understanding of how to address the impact of social media giants on civic space, media pluralism and the diversity of content. Discussions must also focus on the development of appropriate remedies, including solutions to flawed algorithmic processes, to help audiences to spot possible misinformation and ensure users’ exposure to a real diversity of opinions and ideas.
Reactions to the recent US presidential elections or the Brexit referendum are dominated by a sense that facts and rational debate have lost relevance in politics and public discourse. Lies seem to have become the decisive factor in today’s electoral contests. In an effort to preserve whatever is left from the democratic model of society, influential voices have called for a resolute battle to be fought against the viral spread of “fake” stories that infect populations with “dangerous” opinions. However, from the perspective of international law on freedom of expression, the issue of “fake news” must be approached with caution, mindful that prohibition of “fake” or “false” news has often served as an instrument to control the media and restrict editorial freedom.
The real problem with “fake news”
There’s no denying that misinformation exists. Unscrupulous businesses will publish deceitful reports to attract advertising income – to a lesser degree, this is also a preoccupation for certain media outlets that rely on sensationalist headlines. Others might publish lies to influence audiences in the pursuit of other political or economic objectives. In certain circumstances, however, the publication of deceitful information can cause serious harm. It could damage an individual’s reputation, violate their privacy or trigger disastrous collective reactions.
Nonetheless, restrictions on “fake news” are not the appropriate way to deal with these consequences. Existing laws on defamation, legal provisions that protect the right to privacy, and laws on public order that allow police forces to control the possible consequences of public outrage already provide some protection from negative impacts. All of these laws, of course, must respect the requirements of international standards on freedom of expression: in short, they need to be written with clarity to allow individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions, and they must be proportionate to the ill that they seek to counter. Even less restrictive of freedom of expression, the detailed prescriptions of professional ethics and mechanisms of self-regulation such as press councils also serve to encourage media and journalists to publish reliable and accurate information.
By contrast with finely-tailored legislation, any legal prohibition of “fake” news would inevitably create a chilling effect upon the media and anyone that contributes to public debate. Facts are by their nature complex and intricate, to the point that it is truly impossible to avoid slight inaccuracies in reporting. Demanding that journalists only publish reports that are absolutely true would simply be impractical. International case law has indeed recognised that journalists contributing to public debates on topics of general interest have the right to a certain degree of exaggeration or even provocation.
Enacting a legal duty of truth would provide public authorities with a powerful instrument to control journalistic activities: allowing public officials to decide what counts as truth is tantamount to accepting that the forces in power have a right to silence critical voices. Journalists or human rights defenders could be sent to prison on accusations of disseminating untrue statements about alleged wrongdoings by the government. Activists that use purposely misleading information to raise awareness through provocative stunts, such as the Yes Men, or satirical publications, such as The Onion or The New Yorker’s Borowitz Report, would be destined to a similar fate.
Like ‘hate speech’ or ‘terrorism’, the notion of “fake news” is too vague to prevent subjective and arbitrary interpretation. It would not be much reassurance to have private entities like Facebook making these assessments instead of public authorities – not to mention that these businesses may be subject to the influence of non-democratic governments in certain countries where they operate.
Social media and the news
Even if self-regulation and proportionate legislation might be sufficient to deal with cases of false information in the media, isn’t it true that social media platforms create echo chambers that can amplify the noise of fake news to unprecedented volumes? People who use online platforms as their main sources of news are surrounded by stories and rumours disseminated by others who share similar views to them. They lose contact with the vast diversity of opinions and ideas that exist in our complex societies, and they may even lose touch with good old-fashioned, factual reality.
One might first observe that the traditional media sphere has in itself always served as an echo chamber, as mainstream media companies routinely focus on the same few stories of the day. One might also note that the digital age has rendered the verification of facts easier than it ever was: manipulation of digital material can be investigated, and the Internet provides the infrastructure for checking sources and facts. Websites like Snopes or Hoaxbuster even specialise in debunking rumours. One must also acknowledge that social media platforms are incredibly efficient enablers of the individual right to freedom of expression.
But as J. Simon recently wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘Of course, there are many, many benefits to our current media environment. There is more news and information available more easily than at any time in human history. But there are downsides as well. Not only is it impossible to analyse and process the information, but trying to do so produces collective stress. Scientists studying human behaviour artificially create high-stress situations by bombarding their subjects with information. This environment is now replicated in our daily lives.’
Various ideas are being put forward to address social media platforms’ power over the visibility of media content and their influence on public debates. Tech giants are looking into new ways to verify information: relying on third-party organisations to identify “fake news” and refusing to serve advertising revenue to sources of misinformation. Influential media scholars also encourage social media companies to hire editors, not to produce media content, but, in the words of Jeff Jarvis, ‘to bring a sense of public responsibility to their companies and products.’
These proposals are certainly worthy of consideration, but times of uncertainty require caution: any attempt to deal with the influence of social media on the distribution of information and on public debates should be approached as a learning process for all parties involved. As discussed in our previous blog, this learning process is essential for democratic societies. As a collective experience, these initiatives should be open, participatory and transparent. All stakeholders – media companies, journalists, civil society, academia, and social media giants – should collaborate on projects to build a better understanding of how to address the impact of social media giants on civic space, media pluralism and the diversity of content. Discussions must also focus on the development of appropriate remedies, including solutions to flawed algorithmic processes, to help audiences to spot possible misinformation and ensure users’ exposure to a real diversity of opinions and ideas.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Italian PM Matteo Renzi resigns after referendum defeat
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has formally resigned, three days after losing a key referendum on constitutional reform.
Mr Renzi had intended to stand down from office immediately after his defeat on Sunday, but agreed to delay his resignation after a personal plea from Italian President Sergio Mattarella.
In a statement, Mr Mattarella's office said that Mr Renzi has been asked to stay on as caretaker prime minister while consultations are held with political parties.
Following the consultations, which will begin on Thursday evening, Mr Mattarella is widely expected to ask a member of Mr Renzi's cabinet, or a politician from his Democratic Party, to try to form a new government.
Elections are due in 2018, but many politicians are calling for them to be held earlier.
Before formally tendering his resignation to the president, Mr Renzi chaired a meeting of the executive of his centre-left Democratic Party (PD).
Referencing the clamour for early elections, he said: "We are not afraid of anything or anybody, if other parties want to go to the polls ... the PD is not afraid of democracy or elections."
Mr Renzi had intended to stand down from office immediately after his defeat on Sunday, but agreed to delay his resignation after a personal plea from Italian President Sergio Mattarella.
In a statement, Mr Mattarella's office said that Mr Renzi has been asked to stay on as caretaker prime minister while consultations are held with political parties.
Following the consultations, which will begin on Thursday evening, Mr Mattarella is widely expected to ask a member of Mr Renzi's cabinet, or a politician from his Democratic Party, to try to form a new government.
Elections are due in 2018, but many politicians are calling for them to be held earlier.
Before formally tendering his resignation to the president, Mr Renzi chaired a meeting of the executive of his centre-left Democratic Party (PD).
Referencing the clamour for early elections, he said: "We are not afraid of anything or anybody, if other parties want to go to the polls ... the PD is not afraid of democracy or elections."
British hostage John Cantlie appears in new IS propaganda video
A British hostage has appeared in a new Islamic State propaganda video said to have been recorded in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which coalition forces are currently trying to retake from militants.
John Cantlie, a journalist who was captured in Syria in 2012, is pictured looking thin in the face in the footage released by the IS-linked Amaq news agency.
In the video, he talks about damage to the infrastructure in Mosul he says coalition attacks have caused.
Mr Cantlie begins by saying that Mosul, which used to have five bridges across the Tigris River, now has only one bridge linking east and west.
He claims coalition forces "took it upon themselves to systematically destroy" the other four, causing "pandemonium".
Mr Cantlie says the coalition's aim is to stop the "Mujahideen moving freely within Mosul".
But he claims the wrong target has been chosen.
"There are no Mujahideen here," he says. "Mujahideen are fighting on the frontlines, many kilometres (away)."
He says ordinary people are being badly affected and "stopped in their tracks by the bombs that have destroyed these bridges".
Later in the video, Mr Cantlie moves to another location. Behind him are people filling containers with water from a standpipe.
"Since the coalition began dropping bombs in earnest on this city, water is now a big problem," he says.
Mr Cantlie has fronted a series of videos for IS during his time in captivity.
As this latest one was released, the commander of the US-led coalition said its battle against IS in Mosul could take another two months.
The attempt to recapture Mosul from IS is the biggest battle in Iraq since the US-led invasion of 2003.
John Cantlie, a journalist who was captured in Syria in 2012, is pictured looking thin in the face in the footage released by the IS-linked Amaq news agency.
In the video, he talks about damage to the infrastructure in Mosul he says coalition attacks have caused.
Mr Cantlie begins by saying that Mosul, which used to have five bridges across the Tigris River, now has only one bridge linking east and west.
He claims coalition forces "took it upon themselves to systematically destroy" the other four, causing "pandemonium".
Mr Cantlie says the coalition's aim is to stop the "Mujahideen moving freely within Mosul".
But he claims the wrong target has been chosen.
"There are no Mujahideen here," he says. "Mujahideen are fighting on the frontlines, many kilometres (away)."
He says ordinary people are being badly affected and "stopped in their tracks by the bombs that have destroyed these bridges".
Later in the video, Mr Cantlie moves to another location. Behind him are people filling containers with water from a standpipe.
"Since the coalition began dropping bombs in earnest on this city, water is now a big problem," he says.
Mr Cantlie has fronted a series of videos for IS during his time in captivity.
As this latest one was released, the commander of the US-led coalition said its battle against IS in Mosul could take another two months.
The attempt to recapture Mosul from IS is the biggest battle in Iraq since the US-led invasion of 2003.
Bashar al-Assad: Aleppo victory will be a 'huge step'
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said a victory for his army in the second city of Aleppo would be a "huge step" towards ending the country's devastating five-year civil war.
Defeating rebels in Aleppo, however, would not put an end to Syria's conflict, Assad said in an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan to be published on Thursday, an early copy of which was seen by AFP news agency.
"It's true that Aleppo will be a win for us, but let's be realistic - it won't mean the end of the war in Syria," Assad said. "But it will be a huge step towards this end."
Since it began in March 2011, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people, made more than half of Syrians homeless, and created the world's worst refugee crisis.
Government forces scored an important victory on Wednesday when the rebels retreated from the Old City, the historic heart of Aleppo.
They extended their advances later in the day, seizing the Bab al-Nayrab, Al-Maadi and Salhin neighbourhoods, according to state media.
More neighbourhoods were expected to fall soon, but rebels were fighting ferociously.
The Syrian Civil Defence, a first responder group also known as the White Helmets, said air strikes and shelling on Wednesday killed 61 people in what's left of the rebel-held east of the city.
Syria state television reported late on Wednesday that rebel shelling killed 14 civilians and wounded 70 others, some critically, targeting government-held districts in west Aleppo.
Defeating rebels in Aleppo, however, would not put an end to Syria's conflict, Assad said in an interview with Syrian daily Al-Watan to be published on Thursday, an early copy of which was seen by AFP news agency.
"It's true that Aleppo will be a win for us, but let's be realistic - it won't mean the end of the war in Syria," Assad said. "But it will be a huge step towards this end."
Since it began in March 2011, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people, made more than half of Syrians homeless, and created the world's worst refugee crisis.
Government forces scored an important victory on Wednesday when the rebels retreated from the Old City, the historic heart of Aleppo.
They extended their advances later in the day, seizing the Bab al-Nayrab, Al-Maadi and Salhin neighbourhoods, according to state media.
More neighbourhoods were expected to fall soon, but rebels were fighting ferociously.
The Syrian Civil Defence, a first responder group also known as the White Helmets, said air strikes and shelling on Wednesday killed 61 people in what's left of the rebel-held east of the city.
Syria state television reported late on Wednesday that rebel shelling killed 14 civilians and wounded 70 others, some critically, targeting government-held districts in west Aleppo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)