Bogota, Colombia – Jenifer Torealba arrived at Colombia’s first migrant tent camp on Tuesday after walking eight days with her six-year-old daughter from their home in Maracaibo, Venezuela, only to find the gate closed.

The camp, the first of it its kind in a country that has long weathered the rising tide of Venezuelan migration, had opened just hours before.

It was already at capacity, forcing Torealba and her daughter, Moiera, to sleep outside.

The 78-tent camp was built only for the nearly 500 migrants who had for months inhabited a growing shanty town near the city’s main bus station. Once they were relocated, the gates were shut.

“It was never considered that everyone who arrives here could keep getting in and keep getting in,” said Juan Carlos Diaz, director of risk management for the Bogota mayor’s office, as he overlooked the new tent camp.

Of the more than one million documented Venezuelans in Colombia, about 240,000 are in Bogota. Many, fleeing their country’s crippling economy, violence, political persecution and food and medicine shortages, arrive in Colombia on foot without a peso in hand.

Colombia had long avoided raising tent cities to house Venezuelans. Authorities worried it would incentivise migration or leave them responsible for a large population. 

But a burgeoning informal encampment in Bogota finally left them no choice. The new camp, scheduled to operate until January, marks the first time that the flow of people out of Venezuela has pushed Colombian authorities to open a massive city-funded shelter.

“Large cities are resisting opening temporary shelters because they could become a magnet for large inflows,” said Marianne Menijvar, Colombia director for the International Rescue Committee. “Quite clearly having large numbers of migrant Venezuelans with children sleeping in the street is a public safety issue for Venezuelans.”

This month, the UN announced that more than three million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014.

In the first nine months of 2018 along, more than 770,000 Venezuelans entered Colombia, up about 400 percent from the 185,000 that entered in all of 2017.

“The Colombian government is overwhelmed, they need international assistance,” Menijvar said.

The migration is only expected to continue. Venezuela is stuck in a “rapidly descending spiral”, said Phil Gunson, Caracas-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. Food scarcity is deepening and public utilities like water and electricity continue to deteriorate.

“People talk about their relatives and friends who have left. People ask each other, ‘why are you still here, why haven’t you left?’” Gunson said. “It’s constantly on people’s mind.”

Torealba made the decision to leave with her daughter because she was unable to buy food. 

The need

The migration has already sparked violence in Brazil and spurred a standoff at the Ecuadorian border. Tent cities have sprung up for Venezuelans in Brazil and Peru, but Colombia’s primary tactic has been encouraging Venezuelans to move on to their destinations across the continent. 

Many have nowhere to go, however, and over the summer a few Venezuelans began to camp in a wooded plot beside Bogota’s main bus terminal.

By the time Jean Carlos Gonzalez arrived in August, the 24-year-old former nurse from Maracaibo found about 50 people residing there. He also pitched his tent. He begged for change at local traffic lights and cooked rice or lentils over a fire at night.

“We were peaceful at first, then crazy people started to come,” he said. “Every day more people arrived until there were like 400.”

The encampment began to spill out of the lot. Eventually, tents made of recycled plastics lined the train tracks and city streets for several blocks. Dozens of campfires burned each night. Some robberies and fights were reported.

“You simply can’t have people living in the street,” said Mario Ferrera, 62, an accountant and a resident of the area. “They ruined their own country and now it is our problem.”

He said Colombia struggled with its own poverty and that national resources shouldn’t go to support a foreign population. 

While many Colombians share Ferrera’s sentiment, others do not and Colombia has continued to welcome Venezuelans, granting them access to education and emergency healthcare and allowing them into the country undocumented.

On Tuesday morning, city authorities swept into the informal encampment, took a census of the migrants and relocated them by bus to the new tent city, located on a football field less than a kilometre away. Those living in the camp must check in and out with guards if they wish to leave, and the gates are shut from 6pm-6am every day.  

‘Isn’t there space for women with children?’

On Wednesday, smoke from a few cooking fires rose above the camp’s fencing. Authorities set up supplies of water and power and were distributing blankets.

“This will close in three months,” said Diaz with the mayor’s office, looking over the camp. “They have three months to figure out what they are going to do. They can go on their way to Ecuador or Peru or they can work.”

Outside the camp, several dozen Venezuelans, including Torealba and Moiera, waited with hopes of getting in.

A city employee in a bright red uniform came through the gate to explain that no one else would be allowed entry; only those recorded in the Tuesday morning census could stay there.

“My daughter slept on the street last night and we were cold,” Torealba said, weeping. “Isn’t there space for women with children?”

The employee apologised and walked back through the gate. But later she returned and quietly led Torealba inside.

Authorities issued her a bed and blanket for her and her daughter and welcomed her to camp.

But they warned that she had three months to find somewhere else to stay.

England v United States – Wayne Rooney returns for farewell game – Live – BBC Sport

<!–

<!–

<!–
<!–

<!–
<!–

<!–

<!–

<!–

Image: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

They smoked, but did not inhale.

Facebook has decided to stop working with the consulting firm Definers, the company wrote in a statement published Thursday. It also denied that Facebook ever contracted Definers to do opposition research-style work on its behalf. The action comes in the wake of a sweeping New York Times article published Wednesday that included reports that Definers sought to bolster Facebook’s image by encouraging the publication of negative content about its competitors and critics.

“Lastly we wanted to address the issue of Definers, who we ended our contract with last night,” Facebook wrote. “The New York Times is wrong to suggest that we ever asked Definers to pay for or write articles on Facebook’s behalf – or to spread misinformation.”

The Times article published Wednesday reported on the actions of high-level leadership during the last three years at Facebook, which included the response to Russian manipulation on the platform, decisions around hate speech, and the ways the company sought to bolster its political relationships and public image, while avoiding regulations.

One of the ways it reportedly did so was through work with Definers, a consulting firm founded by Republican political operatives. Definers reportedly advised opposition research style tactics, which means pushing out damaging content about competitors and critics. 

For Facebook, this allegedly included bringing competitors like Google and Twitter into the election manipulation conversation, disparaging Apple, exposing that a grassroots anti-Facebook campaign was funded by George Soros, and accusing those protesters of anti-semitism. 

The Times did note in its original article that Facebook did not pay for the anti-Apple press release items, published by the Definers affiliate NTK-Network. Another unnamed technology company reportedly paid for negative Apple press releases, which were in turn picked up by outlets like Breitbart. But Definers official Tim Miller reportedly told the Times that regarding Apple and privacy, “Facebook is happy to ‘muddy the waters.’”

Facebook responded to the Times article in a statement largely denying the reports of how its executives responded, in real time, to election manipulation and hate speech threats online. Curiously, it did not deny reports of Facebook’s beef with Apple in the wake of Tim Cook’s comments criticizing Facebook on privacy — which it used as its reason why it never hired Definers to criticize Apple. That beef included Zuckerberg “encouraging” employees to use Android phones instead of iPhones.

“Tim Cook has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees,” Facebook wrote. “So there’s been no need to employ anyone else to do this for us.”

In other words, Apple says it can fight its street battles itself.

Morocco’s King Mohammed VI and French President Emmanuel Macron have inaugurated what has been described as Africa‘s fastest train, with a trip from the northwestern city of Tangier to the capital, Rabat.

The railway, known as the LGV, will more than halve the travel time between the industrial and commercial hubs of Casablanca and Tangier to two hours and 10 minutes, instead of four hours and 45 minutes, according to officials. 

The project was completed after seven years of work in a 22.9bn dirhams ($2.4bn) project joint-funded by France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. 

Morocco bought 12 double-decker high-speed trains from the French group Alstom to be operated by the state-owned railway ONCF, which expects six million passengers to use the new service annually. 

The king and the French president on Thursday boarded the train at Tangier after they were handed tickets by the Director General of Morocco’s National Railway Office, Mohamed Rabie Khlie, according to state news agency MAP. 

Last year, Jean-Yves Le Drian, France’s foreign minister, called the railway “the fastest train on the African continent” during a visit to Morocco to sign a loan deal between the ONCF and the French Development Agency.

Authorities have said the project is part of a larger rail plan aimed at upgrading Morocco’s transportation system and boosting the economy. 

However, the new line has not been without its controversies.

The high cost has drawn criticism, with some saying the project was not a priority and the money would have been better spent on health and education.

Critics also say it has flagged disparities in spending between the north and south of the country – vast southern regions and major cities such as Agadir are without a basic rail service.

A derailment in October near Kenitra, 15km north of Rabat, which killed seven people and injured 125 others, sparked further criticism and calls for increased funding to improve safety and infrastructure as well as the punctuality of basic railway services. 

Outgoing executive chairman Richard Scudamore will receive a £5m farewell bonus paid by clubs, the Premier League has confirmed.

Scudamore will receive the payment over a three-year period “in recognition of his outstanding work”.

He will remain with the Premier League in an advisory capacity.

It comes after football fans urged clubs not to “stick their hands down the back of the sofa” and contribute to Scudamore’s departing gift.

Scudamore – who reportedly earns £2.5m per season – is stepping down in December after 19 years at the organisation.

The Premier League’s UK television rights were valued at about £670m when Scudamore joined the organisation in 1999, while the most recent deal was worth £5.14bn.

All 20 Premier League clubs were asked by Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck for a £250,000 contribution – something which fans “strongly opposed”.

“Premier League clubs have always told fan groups that budgets are planned in advance and there’s not a surplus of cash lying around from their extremely lucrative TV deal,” said the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF).

“In the meantime, loyal football supporters continue to be inconvenienced by fixture changes to fit TV schedules, often losing out on travel costs or struggling to get to and from games in the first place.

“Now it appears clubs can stick their hands down the back of the sofa and find £250,000 at a moment’s notice.”

Speaking outside the meeting of all Premier League clubs on Thursday, Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy said: “We are all very supportive [of the payment].

“He has unique knowledge and experience which is going to be of ongoing benefit to the Premier League. It’s absolutely a fair payment and all the clubs were behind it.”

West Ham co-chairman David Gold said he backed the payment to Scudamore.

“He deserves everything he gets,” Gold said. “This is all very appropriate and we’re all very pleased.”

On Tuesday, the Premier League announced that Susanna Dinnage will be its new chief executive.

Image: David Dettmann / Netflix

If you’ve ever wanted to feel what it’s like to be in an episode of Black Mirror, now’s your chance.

A Black Mirror-inspired board game called Nosedive was revealed Thursday, taking the existentially frightening Season 3 episode of the same name and turning it into a supposedly fun game to play with your friends and family.

Nosedive, a self-described social game, is based on the 2016 Black Mirror episode “Nosedive,” starring Bryce Dallas Howard, in which people have the ability to give each other star ratings with their phones. These public star ratings determine people’s social status, entry to events, and purchasing option — a take on how classism creates division in society and severely impacts those who are less fortunate.

The game, by Asmodee, tasks players with making the right decisions to increase their social score and “create the ‘perfect’ life.” You increase your score by collecting Lifestyle cards and offering other players certain life experiences through a companion app. Your fellow players rate you based on what you offer them.

It seems like one of those games that can create some really stressful situation and potentially cause some schisms in your previously airtight relationships with other players. At the end of the day, Nosedive is a game so there has to be a winner and at least a couple of losers.

If the game is anything like the episode, getting a couple of low ratings in a row could have some devastating, snowball-like effects that end up with you covered in mud and unable to rent a decent car. 

But sometimes you really shouldn’t be living your life trying to please everyone. You have to look out for numero uno — yourself. If you want to win Nosedive, though, prepare to do some ass kissing.

h/y TheWrap

Austria’s Dominic Thiem maintained his hopes of reaching the ATP Finals last four with a straight-set win over Japan’s Kei Nishikori in London.

The world number eight, who lost to Kevin Anderson and Roger Federer in straight sets in his previous group matches, won 6-1 6-4.

It means Federer will advance to the semi-finals if he wins a set against Anderson at 20:00 GMT on Thursday.

But if Anderson wins in two sets Thiem could progress with the South African.

You can follow the decisive match between 20-time Grand Slam champion Federer and Anderson through BBC Radio 5 live and text commentary on the BBC Sport website.

Thiem hopes for Anderson favour against Federer

Thiem has been a regular fixture in the world’s top 10 over the past couple of years and, after reaching his first Grand Slam final at the French Open in June, came to the season-ending tournament looking to prove his credentials on a bigger stage once again.

But, before meeting Nishikori, he knew he faced an uphill battle to reach the semi-finals at the O2 Arena for the first time.

After performing well below par in his defeats against Anderson and Federer, Thiem upped his first serve percentage to put pressure on Nishikori who, like in his loss to Anderson, made a significant number of unforced errors.

The second set was tighter as Nishikori rallied but another break for Thiem put him in command with a 4-3 lead.

Superb court coverage from the Austrian kept him in the point at 30-0 in what proved to be the final game, a brilliant forehand winner bringing up three match points.

And he needed only one, thumping down an ace out wide to seal victory.

“Whatever happens in the night match it is good to get a win here,” Thiem said.

“I wasn’t thinking about winning in two sets, I wasn’t playing good in my other matches, so I just wanted to show my real self and it was way better.”

Nishikori out after spectacular start

Unlike Thiem, Nishikori now knows he has no chance of reaching the semi-finals – no matter what happens between Anderson and Federer.

Since opening the tournament with a shock 7-6 (7-4) 6-3 win over Federer, the world number nine has looked a shadow of his usual self.

He managed to claim only another six games in his matches against Anderson and Thiem combined and, against the Austrian, made 42 unforced errors.

An indication of his troubles was shown when the usually-serene 29-year-old smashed his racquet on the ground during a second set in which he failed to earn a single break point.

Image: © 2018 DigitalGlobe, a Maxar company

As wildfires continue to rage across California, a set of before and after photos brings into focus the utter devastation wrought by the blazes, particularly in the northern California town of Paradise which has essentially been incinerated by the fires.

As of Thursday morning, the Camp Fire has burned over 140,000 acres and is still raging at only 40 percent contained after sparking to life a week ago.

Investigators are still searching for a cause of the fire.

Once the fire exploded, it was fueled by already unusually parched timber and grasses and driven quickly, burning 70,000 acres in is first 24 hours, by excessive winds. The fire is California’s deadliest ever with 59 reported deaths as of Thursday morning and more than 100 people still reported missing.

Meanwhile, in Southern California, the Woolsey Fire was 57 percent contained as of Thursday morning as it had burned just shy of 100,000 acres. The other notable recent blaze, the Hill Fire, was 97 percent contained, some rare good news in a horrible week for the state. 

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia’s terror list. 

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin’s ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even after Ghani’s government refused to send an official delegation. Demonstrating growing engagement with the main military opposition player in Afghanistan was what it ultimately wanted to achieve.

Engaging the Taliban in the 1990s

The November 9 conference was not the first time Russia and the Taliban had come together to talk. The armed group sought to establish relations with Russia as early as 1995, when the armed group already controlled a number of southern provinces in the country, including Kandahar.

It was that year that I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan and meet some members of the Taliban leadership. In August 1995, a Russian cargo plane was forced to land in Kandahar International Airport by a Taliban fighter jet and its leaders used the opportunity to send a message to the Russian government.

I was one of a group of journalists that the Taliban allowed to visit the detained crew of the plane and had the opportunity to meet some of their leadership. One of them, a man who held a position equivalent of a governor, asked me to convey a special request to the Russian government to supply the Taliban with a map of the minefields in Kandahar, which the Soviet army had set up during its military intervention in the 1980s. At that time, much work was being done to de-mine these areas.

The first unofficial contacts between Russia and the Taliban were established in the second half of the 1990s, after the latter defeated the government of the Mujahedeen in Kabul in April 1996 and sought international recognition for their regime.

Communication between the Taliban and Moscow eventually resulted in a closed meeting in Ashgabad, the capital of Turkmenistan arranged for by the late Turkmen leader Saparmurat Niyazov. A Russian delegation met Taliban representatives who put forward one demand: that Russia backs a Taliban representative for the seat of the permanent Afghan representative to the UN – a position which at that time was still occupied by an Afghan official loyal to toppled Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani.

The Russian government deemed it unreasonable to accept the demand and as a result no further meetings were held. In hindsight, this decision was perhaps a major diplomatic mistake. The Taliban leadership at that time was clearly willing to engage (and was much less hostile to Russia than the current one), which Moscow could have used to its advantage.

But at that time, the Russian government insisted on maintaining relations with the government of the Mujahideen, led by Rabbani, Ahmad Shah Massoud and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, rather than with an armed group supported by the Pakistani intelligence which they hardly understood.

One of the consequences of Russia (and other countries) suspending contact with the Taliban was that it became more radicalised. Failing to secure international recognition, the leadership of the Taliban continued to host al-Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden, as he planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks.

Russia sought to re-establish contacts with the Taliban were only in the mid-2010s, after the sharp deterioration of Russian-US relations, the start of the Russian military operation in Syria and the movement of militants from Syria to Afghanistan.

Russia’s re-assertion strategy in Afghanistan

After long years of having no substantial policy regarding Afghanistan, Moscow finally decided to re-engage. Its greater involvement in the Middle East has given it the confidence to re-assert itself in other parts of its immediate “neighbourhood”, including Afghanistan.

Part of Russia’s considerations are purely security-related. The increased terrorism activity in Afghanistan’s northern provinces, close to the borders of former Soviet republics like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Using this threat – and even exaggerating it – Moscow is likely seeking to increase its military presence in Central Asia.

At the same time, the Russian government wants to play the role of a “peace-maker” in Afghanistan to use it as leverage in its relations with the US. By strengthening relations with the Taliban, which is fighting the government of Ashraf Ghani, a close US ally, Moscow is seeking to become an important player in conflict resolution in Afghanistan, where the interests of various regional and world powers, including the US, come together. In this way, it gets to open yet another front through which it seeks to re-engage with the US.

The success of Russia’s peace-making effort in Afghanistan could not succeed without some alignment with the US, whose military presence, along with NATO’s, is keeping President Ghani’s government in place. The Kremlin understands that clearly and is trying to extract the maximum amount of political dividends from its cooperation with the Taliban within the framework of the Moscow conference.

That the Russian peace initiative would not amount to much without US participation is also something the Taliban leadership themselves are quite aware of. After the November 9 conference, their representatives re-affirmed that they are ready to negotiate with Washington as long as it commits to pulling out its forces from Afghanistan and announces a timetable for the withdrawal. Until then, they have vowed not establish any direct contacts with President Ghani, who they perceive as US puppet.

The purpose of their trip to Moscow was not just to reiterate this position but also to show the US that they have “alternatives”; that is, if Washington does not engage, then the Taliban would seek political and even military support from its perceived competitor, Russia.

In the West, there are already rumours that Moscow is sending military supplies to the Taliban – a claim that is yet to be backed by concrete evidence. While the veracity of reports about Russian arms shipments to the Taliban is under question, what has been confirmed is that Russia was able to convince its leadership to come to the November 9 conference through the use of military backdoor channels.

The Taliban, however, might soon discover that they do not need to go to these extents to pressure the US into engaging in peace talks.

So far US President Donald Trump had to go back on his promise to bring US troops “back home” from Afghanistan and under pressure from the Pentagon approved the deployment of additional military personnel. But his strategy could change in the second half of his presidential term. He is desperate for re-election and for that he needs a big diplomatic “victory” to sell to its electorate. Striking a deal with the Taliban and pulling out of Afghanistan could be that much-needed victory he is looking for.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.  

Video assistant referees are set to be used in the Premier League next season, after clubs agreed in principle to the move.

The Premier League will now make a formal request to the International Football Association Board and Fifa.

VAR was used at the 2018 World Cup, is in operation in Italy and Germany’s top divisions, and has been utilised in some FA Cup and Carabao Cup games.

The Premier League has been carrying out “non-live” trials this season.

VAR will also be used in the Champions League from next season.

There have been growing calls for it to be introduced into the English top flight for several years.

But in April Premier League clubs voted against it being used for the 2018-19 season.

On Saturday, Southampton forward Charlie Austin called for a change after he was denied a goal for offside against Watford, a decision he called a “joke”.

Saints manager Mark Hughes added: “All the major sports have video reviews and for some reason the Premier League, which is watched all around the world, is still in the dark ages.”

VAR has been trialled regularly in a “non-live environment” in the Premier League this season, although match officials have not been contacted by those conducting the trials.

Clubs were given an update at a meeting on Thursday.

A statement from the Premier League said its testing programme would continue for the rest of the season “with a continued emphasis on those Saturday afternoons which have several matches being played concurrently”.

How VAR decisions are communicated to fans in the stadium will also be addressed.

Former Premier League referee Mark Halsey, speaking on BBC Radio 5 live’s Afternoon Edition: “I think it is a good thing. I know a lot of people are against it but we’ve got to embrace it now and move forward.

“We’ve seen this season a number of incidences that have been called wrong, especially this weekend when there were a number of goals ruled out when they shouldn’t have been.

“I think as long as we get the training and education right, and we get the right personnel, that’s the most important thing for me.

“The referees will still want to go out and get the key match decisions right, it’s very important that referees are not hiding behind the VAR – they’ve still going to be making these big calls correctly.”

What is VAR?

The theory behind VAR is simple: more accurate decisions, more often, and at the most important points in matches.

The on-pitch referee makes all the same calls, at the same speed and unaided, as he would without the system in place.

However, the VAR – a current or former top-level referee – is in place to check decisions on four sorts of incidents:

• Goals, including ‘missed’ attacking offences in the build-up
• Penalties awarded and not awarded, including ‘missed’ attacking offences in the build-up
• Direct red cards
• Cases of mistaken identity where the wrong player is shown a red or yellow card

The referee can accept the information relayed through his earpiece by the VAR team, an option usually reserved for objective calls of fact such as if a player is offside.

Or, for more subjective decisions such as red cards and penalty-box fouls, he can review the footage on a pitch-side television monitor before deciding whether to change his initial call.

The VAR team will also proactively contact the referee if they spot “a clear and obvious error” around these four types of incident or a “serious missed incident” – usually off-the-ball violence.

The referee can then decide whether or not to have a review – this is where the replay is officially consulted and is indicated by the referee showing the TV signal.