Latest news with #TheBBC
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Sport
- Business Insider
Photos show how the FIFA Club World Cup is playing to half-empty stadiums
The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup kicked off on June 14. If you didn't know it was happening, you're not alone. Photos show the tournament, which is being held in US stadiums, has been poorly attended thus far. From June 14 to July 13, some of the best soccer teams in the world will be playing each other across the US in the 21st FIFA Club World Cup. If you're thinking, "Wait, isn't the World Cup in 2026? What's the Club World Cup?" you're right to be confused. The FIFA Men's World Cup is in 2026 and will be played in stadiums across the US, Mexico, and Canada by teams representing entire nations, similar to the Olympics. The Club World Cup, revamped this year to compete with other popular tournaments like the typical World Cup, the Champions League, and the Euros, features clubs from across the world instead of countries. It'd be like if the Dodgers played the Tokyo Yakult Swallows. Unfortunately for these world-class players, some of the stadiums for the first round of the tournament have been less than packed. The BBC reported that during the opening round of the tournament, there were 979,373 available seats across the first 16 games. Of those, 556,369 were filled, leaving 423,004 seats empty. The Guardian puts average attendance at 43% capacity. One first-round game was filled to just 13.6% capacity. The Ringer said there's been "no tangible momentum or excitement" for the tournament, held just a year before the better-known World Cup. Some of the teams don't have huge fan bases outside of their local markets, since they don't typically play on a world stage. Other potential reasons for low attendance could include the time of the games — many have been held in the middle of the workday — and soaring temperatures. Ticket prices don't appear to be the problem. Late Friday, June 20, tickets were available in almost every section for the June 21 game at MetLife Stadium. Prices start at $31.79, with tickets in the seventh row from $66. The Athletic reported before the 2025 competition kicked off that students were being offered a five-for-$20 deal for games — essentially $4 a ticket. That's not to say all the games have been poorly attended. The most-attended game of the first round, per Inside FIFA, was the June 15 match between Paris Saint-Germain FC and Atlético Madrid at the Rose Bowl, with 80,619 people in attendance. (That left almost 10,000 empty seats.) FIFA has not responded to a request for comment from Business Insider regarding the low attendance thus far. Here are 16 photos showing how the stands have looked during the first stage of the Club World Cup. At the first match, held at Miami's Hard Rock Stadium on June 14 between Egypt's Al-Ahly and Inter Miami FC, there were plenty of empty seats. The next day, Brazil's SE Palmeiras played Portugal's FC Porto at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. The lower stands were full, but the seats up top were almost empty. Across the country in Seattle, things were not faring much better at the Seattle Sounders match against Botafogo of Brazil. This photo of Chelsea fans at the June 16 match against Los Angeles FC in Atlanta looks like the "Ted Lasso" intro. Here's a wider view of the game, showing some filled seats but lots of empty ones. The stadium holds 70,000 people. Attendance was 22,137. On June 17, Fluminense FC (Brazil) and Borussia Dortmund (Germany) faced off at a half-empty MetLife Stadium. West Coast games weren't faring any better. We feel for this lone fan at the Monterrey/Inter Milan game at the Rose Bowl on June 17. Per the BBC, the lowest-attended match, though, was on June 17 in Orlando's Inter & Co. Stadium. In the stands were 3,412 fans, who were there to watch South Africa's Mamelodi Sundowns FC play South Korea's Ulsan HD. That's 13.6% of the stands' capacity. On June 18, sections were empty at the match between Manchester City FC and Wydad AC, a Moroccan team, at Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field. Down the coast, many seats were available at a match between Real Madrid CF and Al-Hilal Saudi FC at Hard Rock Stadium. There were 5,282 fans at this game between CF Pachuca (Mexico) and FC Salzburg (Austria) in Cincinnati. That's 20% capacity. Source: BBC Not even Lionel Messi was a big enough draw to pack the stands at Inter Miami's match against FC Porto in Atlanta.
Refinery29
2 days ago
- Health
- Refinery29
AI Therapy Is Helping Our Wallets, But Is It Helping Our Minds?
Within just three minutes of using ChatGPT as a therapist, it had told me to 'go low or no contact' with my family. This is something a real therapist might suggest where appropriate after multiple sessions. That should scare us. In a new Harvard Business Review report into how we're using AI today, therapy and companionship came out top. Last year, these things ranked second, and now firmly in first place, they're joined by ' organising my life ' and 'finding purpose' in second and third place respectively. Where content creation and research used to feature heavily near the top, those uses of AI have dropped in favour of emotional uses. We're turning to AI as if it were a friend, confidant or trained professional with our best interests at heart. The BBC has reported on this trend in China specifically, where people use DeepSeek for therapy and get to see the AI's 'thought process' as well as the response. But AI being used in place of healthcare professionals is happening worldwide. When therapy can typically cost £40-100 for one session in the UK, and ChatGPT can be accessed day or night for free, it's no wonder the draw of that is strong. As a journalist, I never think to use ChatGPT. It's like turning up to the house of someone that has promised to shoot me one day. This is unlike my friends in science or data based jobs, who use it for everything, in place of Google or to help plan their holiday itineraries. Having witnessed them do this multiple times, I've come to realise my resistance to AI isn't the norm. And so it won't come as a surprise that I've never used AI as a therapist, though I have done actual therapy in the past. With a quick scroll on TikTok, I can see ChatGPT therapy is popular and a frequent resource for people. Especially young people who predominantly use the app, who might have less disposable income. There are videos with people joking about their AI 'therapists', through to comments giving advice on how to get your ChatGPT voice to become more personal. Lee (surname withheld), 42, from Texas, has been using AI in place of therapy for the last eight months, ever since dating again after a six year hiatus. 'I was confused when some old thought patterns started popping up [as I began dating]. I'd already used ChatGPT for other things and decided to run some problems by him that I was having in dating and family life,' Lee says. 'Him', because Lee's ChatGPT calls itself Alex and says he's a feminist. 'I found it very helpful and cannot think of any instances where it fell short — if anything it exceeded my expectations.' Lee has even made 'progress' in her boundaries regarding a particular family dynamic. Previously, Lee had spent anything from $60 to $150 per appointment on therapy, but at the time she felt she could benefit from it again (and started using ChatGPT), she didn't have access to healthcare so that wasn't a viable option. While there's concern about the efficacy of AI in place of therapy (more on that later), we can't overlook where people feel it has helped them, people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford and access therapy. Lee has a glowing review of her experience so far. 'I have never had a therapist know me as well as ChatGPT does,' she says. 'Alex is always available, doesn't flinch at the hard stuff, and has actually been more consistent than some therapists I've seen. Therapists are trained, but they're still human, and if they haven't lived anything close to what you've been through, it can feel like something is missing in the room.' However, AI, though it isn't human, has learned from humans — and it hasn't lived. In fact, research shows, and spokespeople have said on the record, that AI can tell you what you want to hear and end up mirroring your own opinions. There have even been cases where AI has been linked to deteriorating a person's mental health, with one mum convinced it contributed to her son's suicide. More recently, the New York Times reported on how AI chatbots were causing users to go down 'conspiratorial rabbit holes'. To get a sense of what Lee and the plenty of other people turning to AI for mental health support are experiencing, I started speaking to ChatGPT to see how it would respond to questions around anxiety and family dilemmas. The first thing that struck me was how quickly you can be inundated with information — information that it would take several weeks of therapy to receive. While ChatGPT did tell me it wasn't a licensed therapist and that if I'm in crisis I should seek out a mental health professional, in the same breath it reassured me that it can 'definitely provide a supportive, nonjudgmental space to talk through things'. It also said it could offer CBT-based support, which in the UK is the bog standard form of therapy people get when they go to the GP. I was pretty surprised to then see, within a few minutes of using the chat, that it offered to help me work through 'deeper issues happening since childhood'. I had asked hypothetical questions to see its response, some of which centred on family. A CBT practitioner will often tell you this form of therapy isn't the best suited to deep work (I know, because I've been told this first-hand numerous times, and the therapists I've interviewed for this piece agree), because CBT typically isn't designed for long-term deep unpicking. A lengthier, costlier form of therapy is better suited, and with good reason. And yet, ChatGPT was up for the challenge. Caroline Plumer, a psychotherapist and founder of CPPC London, took a look at my conversation with AI and found parts of it 'alarming'. 'There's definitely information in here that I agree with,' she says, 'such as boundary setting not being about controlling others behaviour. Overall, though, the suggestions feel very heavy-handed, and the system seems to have immediately categorised you, the user, as 'the good guy' and your family as 'the bad guys.' Oftentimes with clients there is a need to challenge and explore how they themselves may also be contributing to the issue.' Plumer adds that when exploring dysfunctional family issues, it can take 'weeks, months, or even years of work' — not, a matter of minutes. She also thinks, getting all of this information in one go, could be overwhelming for someone. Even if it's seemingly more economic, a person might not be able to handle all of the suggestions let alone process and action them, when they're given at rapid fire speed. Plumer says it isn't helpful having an abundance of generic suggestions that aren't truly accounting for nuance or individuality. At least, not in the same way a therapist you'd see over a period of time can do. On top of this, the environmental impact of AI is huge. 'I appreciate that lots of people don't have the privilege of having access to therapy. However, if someone is really struggling with their mental health, this might well be enough to set them off down an even more detrimental and potentially destructive path.' Liz Kelly, psychotherapist and author of This Book Is Cheaper Than Therapy, thinks the suggestion I consider low or no contact with certain family members is reflective of how commonly discussed cutting people off now is, almost as if ChatGPT is playing on social media buzzwords. This worries her, too. 'You could potentially make a hasty, reactive decision that would be difficult to undo later,' Kelly says, citing the role of the therapist to help someone emotionally regulate themselves before making any big decisions. When it's just you and a laptop at home, no one is checking in on that. 'I certainly wouldn't jump straight to these suggestions after one short snippet of information from the client,' is Plumer's conclusion after reading my transcript with AI. 'Ideally you want to help a client to feel supported and empowered to make healthier decisions for themselves, rather than making very directive suggestions.' Kelly feels that while some helpful information and advice was provided, the insight was lacking. 'As a therapist, I can ask questions that my clients haven't thought of, challenge them to consider new perspectives, help connect the dots between their past and present, assist them in gaining insight into their experiences, and support them in turning insight into action. I can assess which therapeutic interventions are most suitable for my clients, taking into account their individual histories, needs, and circumstances. A therapeutic modality that works for one client may be entirely inappropriate for another.' While AI can 'learn' more about you the more you speak to it, it isn't a replacement for therapy. But at the same time, in this financial climate, people clearly are going to keep turning to it — and you're going to need greater discernment on where to take and leave the advice if you do.
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Meghan and Harry's new approach is 'fresh nightmare for royals'
Following the Sussexes' viral Baby Momma dance video, a PR expert explains why the rumours of a royal reality show could be bad news for their extended royal family The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could be set to film their own fly-on-the-wall documentary series which, given their history of spilling the beans, could spell trouble for the royal family. After Meghan released her now-viral twerking video, experts say there's more signs than ever that the couple are 'breaking the mould' of royal life and are ready to take steps into the lucrative world of reality television. 'It looks very much like they would love to do a reality show,' says PR guru Dermot McNamara. 'She's sharing far more of her personal, fun life with Harry and the children, and focusing on the fun and light-hearted side of themselves. Meghan is as popular as she is polarising and that makes TV gold because everyone has an opinion on her. In this throwaway, digital society we want big pop culture moments – and Meghan and Harry deliver those, so the channels will be very keen to sign them up.' READ MORE: Marks & Spencer's 'lightweight' basket bag is perfect for holidays and 'looks so expensive' While Meghan is set to release the second season of her very polished With Love, Meghan series later this year, a reality show would be the first of its kind for the California-based couple. But given their history of dropping bombshells when the cameras start rolling, a source tells us that a Kardashian-esque programme could spell bad news for the UK royals. 'We can see that Meghan and Harry don't feel they have to stay silent any more, it's clear in the interviews they've done, and the other shows,' our source claims. 'So if they go on to film more, and especially if they discuss their relationship with William and Kate, for example, it would probably be a nightmare for the rest of the family.' Meghan's twerking video, which lasts just under 90 seconds, shows a heavily pregnant Meghan, 43, and Prince Harry, 40, dancing to the Starrkeisha song The Baby Momma in an attempt to kick off her labour with Lilibet, now four. At the time of going to press the twerking reel had amassed over 46 million views, making it Meghan's most-watched video on her account by a long way. Only her launch video for As Ever, which was posted back in February, comes anywhere close with 27.8m views so far. The clip inevitably created a storm online, with some followers calling it 'cringe'. One person accused the couple of 'ruining the reputation and respect of the royal family, one Instagram post at a time'. Following the backlash, a national newspaper quoted a source saying that Meghan 'doesn't care about the haters in Britain' and that the clip had gone down a storm and was seen as 'relatable' in the US. The BBC 's former royal correspondent Jennie Bond, however, told the Mirror it was 'utterly bizarre' of Meghan to release the clip, and that King Charles would have been 'horrified' if he'd watched it. Dermot agrees that as working royals, Kate and William have certain standards to uphold and an 'image to portray and maintain', which would likely be at odds with a reality-style show. 'Reality shows and Netflix documentaries are embarrassing for the royals because they can't and haven't ever done them. Yes we see them being more outgoing, talking about mental health and things, but Meghan's labour video, with her twerking and Harry 'dad dancing', goes beyond that.' The fact that TV producers would no doubt welcome the couple discussing their fall-outs on camera complicates things further, he says, adding, 'It often happens that one side is seen to be fighting more than the other, and no one really comes out of it looking great.' When they stepped back as working royals and moved to the US in 2020, it was widely presumed that this was driven by the couple's desire for privacy. However, when their first joint Netflix series was released two years later and they were accused of hypocrisy, they hit back via an official statement from their global press secretary. This read, 'The Duke and Duchess have never cited privacy as the reason for stepping back. This distorted narrative was intended to trap the couple into silence.' According to Dermot, With Love, Meghan made it clear that there's an appetite for the couple sharing their personal life – and that appetite is growing. 'Meghan is very happy with parts of her public life being out there and she knows there's great interest in her life. She's learned that this is what people are interested in, this is what she can commercialise.'
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Untangling the Spider's Web of Ukraine
On June 1, Ukraine launched one of the boldest and most complex operations of the drone warfare era. Codenamed Spider's Web, the mission saw over 100 drones strike deep into Russian territory — far beyond the frontlines of the war, and seemingly out of nowhere. According to Russia's Defence Ministry, airbases in five regions — Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur — came under attack. Moscow acknowledged aircraft damage in Murmansk and Irkutsk, while insisting the remaining drones were repelled. Ukraine, however, claimed the assault was far more devastating: 41 strategic bombers hit and 'at least' 13 destroyed. The aircraft targeted were some of Russia's most prized strategic bombers: Tu-95s, Tu-22s and Tu-160s, all of them long-range, missile-carrying platforms that are no longer in production and have no immediate replacements. These Cold War-era bombers form a key component of Russia's nuclear triad. Independent analysis lends weight to Ukraine's claim of damages. The BBC, citing satellite imagery from Capella Space, confirmed at least four long-range bombers were destroyed at Belaya airbase. Ukrainian drone footage released shortly after showed direct hits on a Tu-95, reinforcing the evidence. 18 months in the making Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) reportedly orchestrated the operation over a period of 18 months. In a statement, SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk revealed how the drones had been stealthily smuggled into Russia: packed inside wooden cabins mounted on trucks, hidden beneath remotely operated, detachable roofs. These trucks, Maliuk said, were driven to locations near airbases by unsuspecting drivers who were allegedly unaware of the drones inside. Once in position, the drones were launched straight from the lorries. Footage circulating online shows one such drone emerging through the roof of a vehicle. Russian Telegram channel Baza, known to have ties to state security services, reported that all drivers gave similar testimonies. They had been hired by intermediaries posing as businessmen to transport wooden cabins and were later instructed via phone where to park. Once the trucks were in place, the drones were activated remotely. The SBU also released photos showing dozens of sleek, compact black drones — reportedly first-person view (FPV) drones — neatly packed in wooden crates inside a warehouse. Russian military bloggers later geolocated the site to Chelyabinsk. The drones were piloted remotely using ArduPilot, an open-source software platform that supports autonomous navigation through dead reckoning — a method that calculates position based on a drone's previously known location, direction, and speed, without relying on satellite navigation. This allowed the drones to remain operational even in areas where GPS jamming is prevalent. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later confirmed that each drone had its own human pilot, launching and steering it from afar. One analyst noted that the drones' use of dead reckoning made them nearly immune to electronic interference. The same analyst also suggested the drones likely used local SIM cards to transmit positional data and digital communications over mobile networks, allowing for remote piloting and even real-time high-resolution video streaming. To overcome the inevitable delays in long-distance communication — and to maintain function even in the event of a signal loss — the drones may also have been equipped with onboard artificial intelligence (AI). According to a report by the Kyiv Post, Ukraine trained AI systems specifically for Spider's Web using hundreds of images of Russian bombers housed at the Poltava Museum of Heavy Bomber Aviation. These images were used to identify vulnerable areas of the aircraft, allowing algorithms to guide drones in autonomously recognising and striking their targets, even without real-time human input. 'Strategic vulnerability laid bare' Following the operation, President Zelensky triumphantly posted on social media that Spider's Web had used 117 drones in total. The mission, he wrote, had taken 'one year, six months and nine days' to prepare. According to the SBU, the estimated cost of the damage inflicted on Russia's air power was $7 billion — a staggering figure in both financial and strategic terms. Speaking to The Express Tribune, Dr. James Rogers, Executive Director at Cornell's Brooks Tech Policy Institute, warns that this is not just a battlefield innovation — it's a strategic vulnerability now laid bare. 'You don't have to run the gauntlet across Russia anymore,' he says. 'These smaller systems can fly so low, and they are incredibly difficult to defend against.' For states that have long relied on geography for protection — like Russia's remote Arctic airbases or even NATO's scattered drone-operating outposts — this raises uncomfortable questions. 'Every airbase can't have bespoke air defences,' Dr. Rogers adds. 'Urban areas can't deploy GPS jammers or microwave weapons without impacting civilian life. And even in rural areas, the numbers just don't add up. Russia likely deprioritised Murmansk and Siberia for this reason.' The same logic could soon apply to US and NATO's expeditionary micro-bases and even civilian infrastructure. Dr. Rogers cites recent sabotage incidents across Europe — 'the Heathrow substation, the Cannes Film Festival blackout, the French rail system disruptions' — as troubling signs of hybrid threats that may soon include commercial surface and underwater drones. Fleeting win or game-changer? Dr. Malcolm Davis, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), calls the attack 'an important strategic strike with high symbolic value.' Though he stops short of comparing it to a 'Russian Pearl Harbor', as some observers immediately labeled it, Dr. Davis notes the precision and scale: 'Containerised munitions, precision FPV drones, Russian drivers unwittingly carrying payloads — this was 18 months of sophisticated intelligence and operational planning.' Yet he also cautions against overstating its impact. One especially sensitive concern is whether the attack's targeting of strategic bombers, technically part of Russia's nuclear triad, risked escalation. Dr. Davis notes that while Tu-95s and Tu-22s were struck, the Tu-160 fleet seemingly remains intact, and Russia has not reached the nuclear red line. 'Yes, it hit Russia's long-range bomber fleet hard, especially Tu-95s and Tu-22s. But many Tu-160 Blackjacks remain. Russia retaliated quickly with bomber-led strikes on Ukrainian cities. Strategically, the war remains unchanged unless Ukraine's international backing falters,' he shares. 'Technically, yes — this could be seen as an attack on nuclear forces,' Dr. Davis explains. 'But using that as a justification for tactical nuclear retaliation is far more complex. It would break the nuclear taboo that's held since Nagasaki. The global political cost — alienating BRICS allies like China or inviting direct NATO intervention — would likely outweigh any benefit for Russia.' Still, the threshold exists. The danger is not that Spider's Web will provoke nuclear retaliation today, but that future strikes — perhaps by actors without the same geopolitical constraints — might not show such restraint. That strategic dimension carries existential weight. Dr. Davis warns that if the United States abandons Ukraine, and European nations fail to fill the void, 'we're either looking at a prolonged stalemate — or a probable Russian victory.' In that context, Spider's Web may be a fleeting tactical win rather than a game-changer. 'The cheap, the small, the many' That said, the attack exposed an uncomfortable truth for advanced militaries worldwide: traditional platforms — like bombers, tanks, and airbases — are now vulnerable to low-cost, high-impact systems. Dr. Davis calls this the era of 'the cheap, the small, and the many.' 'Drone warfare is here, and it's here to stay,' he says. 'For a fraction of the cost of advanced jets or warships, you can build precision strike capabilities that produce outsized effects.' What Ukraine demonstrated was disruptive innovation in real time, a warning to military planners still invested in expensive, legacy systems. Whether Moscow confirms the full scale of the losses or not, Spider's Web marks a turning point in modern warfare: a glimpse into a future where remotely operated, AI-guided weapons can be smuggled across borders and launched from within. Blueprint for non-state actors? While this particular operation was carried out by a state actor — Ukraine — against an invading force in the context of open war, it also raises disquieting questions about the future. Spider's Web may not only represent the evolution of state-led asymmetric warfare — it may also serve as a dark prototype for tactics that could be adopted by non-state actors. Could a similar operation be replicated by terror groups or insurgent movements — organisations that lack access to fighter jets, long-range missiles, or satellite infrastructure, but have access to consumer drones, open-source software, and Internet connectivity? Could this technology serve as a great equaliser, enabling them to threaten or damage the strategic capabilities of far more powerful militaries? The most chilling prospect is that Spider's Web may be copied not just by states, but also by militant groups. Dr. Rogers points out that the parts used in such attacks — consumer-grade drone components, open-source flight software, SIM card-based communication — are nearly impossible to regulate through export controls. 'During a UN investigation, we found no single piece of tech you could realistically lock down to stop this threat,' he says. 'We're entering a phase where violent non-state actors can leverage large language models to become self-taught engineers — capable of designing, modifying, and deploying advanced military technologies,' says Dr. Rogers. 'The second threat is what happens when the Ukraine-Russia war eventually ends. Both sides have produced millions of advanced drones. If even a fraction of that arsenal enters the global arms market, it's only a matter of time before these capabilities end up in the hands of insurgent groups or proxies And who knows what drone capabilities were left behind by departing US forces deployed elsewhere.' Some aspects of that future are no longer theoretical. The January 2024 drone strike that killed three US personnel in Jordan — conducted by an Iranian-aligned militia — was the first time hostile enemy airpower claimed American lives since Korea. Spider's Web, in this light, may be less an anomaly than a warning. The ingredients used in Spider's Web — commercially available drones, repurposed open-source software, AI trained on publicly accessible imagery, and civilian transport vehicles — are, disturbingly, within reach of many well-funded non-state actors. The concept of smuggling drones into a target country in innocuous-looking trucks, hiding them in wooden crates, and launching them via remote command is alarmingly replicable. Moreover, the operation hints at a future where nation-states may use such tactics through proxies, employing drones to carry out precision strikes under a veil of plausible deniability. With no boots on the ground and no need for overt military engagement, Spider's Web-style attacks could blur the line between cyber operations, sabotage, and conventional warfare. A deniable drone strike that cripples an adversary's airbase or power grid may one day fall into the grey zone between war and peace — a tempting tool in an era of hybrid conflict. Just as roadside IEDs reshaped the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, these low-cost, high-impact drone tactics could redefine the modern theatre of war. What Ukraine achieved with Spider's Web was unprecedented. But what it may have inadvertently unleashed is a new doctrine of distributed, deniable, and devastating warfare — one that doesn't require control of the skies, only control of the code. The consequences are profound — not only for military strategists and national security planners but also for civilian infrastructure, global arms control regimes, and the future of warfare itself.
The South African
14-06-2025
- General
- The South African
Air India crash: Traffic saves student
A student is reeling after missing the deadly Air India flight that killed 241 passengers and 12 crew members. Bhoomi Chauhan was stuck in traffic which delayed her by 10 minutes. Despite checking-in online, the 28-year-old, was turned away by airline staff. Chauhan recalled being angry before leaving the airport in frustration. The business administration student who lives in London with her husband was in India for a holiday. Speaking to The BBC, Chauhan said shortly after leaving the airport, she received a call saying that the plane had crashed. 'This is totally a miracle for me. When I missed the flight, I was dejected. Only thing that I had in mind was, 'If I had started a little early, I would have boarded the plane',' she said. Meanwhile, the Global Indian Organisation (GIO) South Africa extended its sympathies to the families impacted by the heartbreaking plane crash. The organisation's president, Claudette Sigamoney said her thoughts and prayers are with the people of India after the devastating and deadly plane crash. 'May the families of all those on board, alongside the emergency services attending the scene, find comfort, solace and the strength to persevere in these moments. May this tragic incident galvanise our collective humanity, inspiring us to come together in support of those affected, and may we find the courage to hold on to hope as we work towards a brighter future,' said Sigamoney. The organisation also paid tribute to the heroic efforts of the emergency services and those providing support amid the deadly plane crash. 'May their selfless acts of kindness be a beacon of light in the darkness, illuminating a path forward filled with a collective capacity of compassion, resilience, hope and healing. Let us strive for peace, understanding, and support, empowering each other to create a more compassionate world,' added Sigamoney. At least eight people on the ground were also killed following the plane crash. However, one passenger, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, survived and was treated for injuries. The cause of the crash is under investigation. According to reports, the Indian government is considering whether it should ground the Boeing-787 fleet in the country. The investigation also seeks to find out if Air India was at fault, following the plane crash. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
