A Portadown man has avoided jail after sexually assaulting a 16-year-old shop worker under his employment. -ADVERTISEMENT- Brian Thomas Chapman (58), of Moyallan Road, appeared before Newry Magistrates’ Court on Monday for sentencing on two counts of sexual assault. The prosecution outlined that on September 23, 2020, a 16-year-old student in the employment of Brian Chapman, disclosed to her mother about incidents that had occurred in her workplace. She said Chapman had put his hand on her thigh and the back of her leg. She also disclosed that she had been getting extra money from him and he had been sending her text messages. The allegations were reported to police the next day, September 24. The victim then took part in an interview on October 9, in which she said, when she was alone in Chapman’s office, he placed his hand on her upper thigh and his other hand on her lower back, underneath her trousers. The defendant was arrested and interviewed at Lurgan police station, where he denied the allegations. His phone was seized and an examination was carried out. The first interview of the defendant took place on October 9, during which he admitted to sending a message about wanting the victim to work 24/7, but stated this was a joke. The second interview took place on January 28, 2021, where he admitted to sending the 24/7 message, but denied sending other messages, such as “hope you’re spending the pounds on something special”. Throughout this process, Chapman denied sending the messages and denied any of the sexual assaults alleged by the victim. On the Chapman’s criminal record, the prosecution added that he was convicted of three common assaults on appeal. In terms of commission, these matters pre-dated this case but the conviction occurred during the running of this case and also involved a female working for the defendant. Prosecution continued that the age of the victim was an aggravating feature, arguing there was a “vulnerability” due to the “power-imbalance” between Chapman and the young student working for him. An additional aggravating feature, they said, was that during the course of the defence, part of the defence was that the victim had “manipulated or manufactured” some of the text messages that were sent. A defence lawyer, speaking on the pre-sentence report, noted the author deemed Chapman to be of low risk. He also noted that similar offences were contested in the County Court in respect of another complaint, with the judge substituting indecent assault charges for common assault. He also argued a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) was not necessary as the offending was four years ago, there has been no repetition and risk had been addressed. District Judge Eamonn King noted the defendant was convicted on two of four original charges following a contest, which ran over a number of days, with the case adjourned for a pre-sentence report and victim impact statement to be produced. He added the defendant “continues to deny” the charges and seeks to appeal the outcome. District Judge King, on reading the pre-sentence report, noted the defendant “denies ever hugging or touching the individual and he denies any sexual attraction to the victim”, but pointed to a paragraph in the report which stated, “From the available evidence, it’s possible to surmise that he demonstrated risk taking and impulsive behaviour. It appears that he took advantage of his position and power in a bid to meet his sexual needs, given the victim’s young age and the fact that he was her employer”. The report added that this demonstrated “limited victim empathy and responsibility due to his denial of the offences”. On the victim impact statement, District Judge King described her as a young girl getting her first job, with the “world as her oyster”. He continued: “As a result of what she says occurred, that turned on its head. It left her feeling inwardly uncomfortable, anxious and lonely. She cut herself off from her friends. She stopped going out. She didn’t want to go to school.” He also described a “degree of manipulation” in the case, as this was the victim’s first job and there was a power imbalance between her as an employee, and Chapman as the employer. In his sentencing remarks, District Judge King, said: “I’ve taken time to emphasise to the victim in this case that the victim did nothing wrong. The victim did everything right and the victim shouldn’t feel lonely, anxious or isolated. “The victim should feel confident, strong and outgoing.” Owing to the defendant’s ongoing denial of the charges, he added: “My sentencing exercise isn’t the conclusion of the case today, but I will sentence, so that we can move towards the conclusion going forward. “I am satisfied, irrespective of what the pre-sentence report says, that the defendant took advantage of someone, attempted to groom someone and was guilty of the two offences.” On the two counts, Chapman was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) for five years and placed on the sex offenders’ register for seven years. Following sentencing, District Judge King fixed bail for appeal at £1,000.

On the evening of July 8, local time, the Israel Defense Forces issued a statement saying that Major General Avi Bluth replaced Yehuda Fox as the commander of the Israeli Central Command. Earlier that day, the Israeli army held a handover ceremony, which was presided over by the Israeli Chief of Staff Halevy. Avi Bluth joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1993 and commanded the Israeli military operations in the West Bank. In May this year, Bruce was promoted to major general and served as a military commander in the Israeli Central Command. CCTV reporters learned that in late April this year, Yehuda Fox, then commander of the Israeli Central Command, requested to resign and retire from the army in August this year. Fox had previously stated that he should bear part of the responsibility for the military intelligence failure on October 7 last year, and "must end his term like everyone else." According to the official website of the Israeli Defense Forces, the Central Command is one of the four major commands of the Israeli army, headquartered in Jerusalem, and its responsibility covers nearly one-third of Israel's territory.

United Airlines confirmed that a tire fell off a Boeing 757 passenger plane when it took off from Los Angeles International Airport in the early morning of July 8, local time. It is reported that there has been no report of any material damage or casualties in this accident. United Airlines said in a statement that the aircraft tire has been found and the investigation is ongoing. There were 174 passengers and 7 crew members on the flight involved. The flight left Los Angeles International Airport at around 7:15 on July 8 and flew to Denver. Unlike the aircraft tire falling incident on a United Airlines flight in March, the pilot of this flight continued the journey to Denver and landed smoothly there.

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn