Dual Saudi-American citizen imprisoned by Crown Prince remains detained

A dual Saudi-American citizen has been detained in Saudi Arabia for over a year after the country's crackdown on corruption and his status has raised new criticism of President Trump's reluctance to punish the kingdom over issues that do not directly affect American citizens.
The White House has been barraged with criticism over its stance towards Saudi Arabia in the wake of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post writer whose death in Turkey was allegedly ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The murder of the writer prompted outrage across the world, with some countries such as Germany ending its arms deal with Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official told The Associated Press that intelligence officials have concluded that bin Salman ordered the killing.
Trump fired back against the criticism that the U.S. isn’t doing enough, saying Khashoggi wasn’t an American citizen and it happened on Turkish soil. “Well, it's not our country. It's in Turkey. And it's not a citizen, as I understand it,” he said last month.
TRUMP UNSURE WHETHER SAUDI CROWN PRINCE KNEW OF KHASHOGGI MURDER: ‘MAYBE HE DID AND MAYBE HE DIDN’T!’

Walid Fitaihi, a Harvard-trained doctor, television host and motivational speaker was arrested last year together with 17 other people in what bin Salman touted as a crackdown on corruption. 

But as he made the comments, an American doctor was spending his days in prison as part of bin Salman’s purge of businessmen, princes, clerics, scholars and activists in a bid to consolidate power, the New York Times reported.
Walid Fitaihi, a Harvard-trained doctor, television host and motivational speaker was arrested last year together with 17 others in what bin Salman touted as a crackdown on corruption. The detained individuals reportedly underwent harsh treatment and abuse, with at least one person dying due to abuse in detention.
Unlike some other detainees, who managed to free themselves after pledging loyalty to the new Saudi leadership or paying money, Fitaihi was transferred to prison for incarceration despite not being formally charged with any crime.
Fitaihi obtained his American citizenship more than a decade ago when studying and practicing medicine in the U.S. He once was registered to vote in U.S. elections and moved back to Saudi Arabia sometime in 2006. Upon his return to Saudi Arabia, he founded a private hospital.
After the September 11, 2001 terror attack in the U.S., Fitaihi was quoted by the Denver Post condemning the attacks. “There are Muslims who died, Christians who died, Jews who died — it’s a crime against humanity,” he said. “It’s a test for us as a nation.”
In 2004, Fitaihi came under fire for revelations that he made anti-Semitic comments in Arabic newspapers, including calling Jews “perpetrators of the worst of evils” and to have said they control “the power of the media,” according to the Times.
CIA DETERMINES KHASHOGGI’S DEATH WAS ORDERED BY SAUDI CROWN PRINCE MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN: REPORT
The Trump administration has long sought to free imprisoned Americans across the world, taking harsh measures against hostile countries in an attempt to force their release.
Earlier this year, three Americans were freed from North Korea who were accused of hostile acts against the communist state. The President also campaigned to bring back American college student Otto Warmbier, who suffered brain damage and died after being held captive in North Korea for 15 months after an ill-fated trip to the country in 2015. More recently, Trump imposed trade sanctions on Turkey, forcing the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson.
But it appears the Trump administration hasn’t made attempts to free Fitaihi, except for “routinely request[ing] consular access to all American citizens that have been detained in Saudi Arabia,” according to the Times.
Khashoggi, the slain writer, once spoken out against about his friend’s arrest.
“What has happened to us?” Khashoggi tweeted. “How can someone like Dr. Walid Fitaihi be arrested and what are the justifications for it?”
“Everyone is in a state of confusion and helplessness, there is no one you can go to,” he added. “God help us.”

Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong

In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.
The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.
Shame on the chief justice. What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.
With everyone looking for ways to remove the high court from the political thicket, Roberts strode arrogantly right into it. Sad day.
Roberts responded Wednesday to comments President Trump made to reporters a day earlier, after a district court judge appointed by President Obama issued an order to stop Trump’s new emergency restrictions on asylum claims by immigrants from taking effect.
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco issued the nationwide injunction blocking the president’s restrictions. The restrictions would have made it harder for many of the thousands of Central American migrants now heading toward the U.S. border in caravans to apply for asylum in America.
“This was an Obama judge, and I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore," the president said of Tigar. "Everybody that wants to sue the U.S. – almost – they file their case in the 9th Circuit, and it means an automatic loss. No matter what you do, no matter how good your case is. And the 9th Circuit is really something we have to take a look at, because it's not fair."
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts shot back Wednesday, as if he were facing Trump in a presidential candidate debate. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.

But President Trump’s criticism of liberal judges in the 9th Circuit who were nominated by President Obama was accurate. These judges previously issued an order blocking the president’s Travel Ban Executive Order that was designed to protect our country from terrorists crossing our borders. As President Trump correctly noted, the Supreme Court later overturned the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Roberts’ comments seemed particularly strange because he had never injected himself into a political debate before.
In fact, Roberts sat quietly through President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address when Obama sharply attacked Supreme Court justices sitting in the audience for their ruling in the Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited political campaign contributions by unions and corporations.
President Obama falsely claimed in this speech that the Citizens United ruling allowed massive political contributions by foreign corporations. It did no such thing.
As the justices sat in the House chamber listening to his speech, President Obama embarrassed the court directly and fiercely. Not a peep from Roberts. Only Justice Samuel Alito quietly mouthed to himself “no, no” as Obama railed against foreign campaign contributions.
Roberts has said nothing about Obama’s remarks in the eight years since.
So why did Roberts attack President Trump on Wednesday? Well, Trump is not a Democrat.
Many believe that Roberts caved to political criticism by President Obama and his Democratic cohorts in a case where Roberts was the decisive vote in a ruling that found ObamaCare was constitutional – a historic victory for Democrats.
Roberts clearly accepted the claim by Democrats in that case that the Supreme Court could not overturn ObamaCare or the high court would forever harm the republic and subvert the legislative process and the will of the people.
It is widely believed that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute to stop the Supreme Court from overturning ObamaCare in that landmark case because of pressure from outside forces directed against him.
Indeed, the wording of various dissents in the ObamaCare case – especially Justice Antonin Scalia’s – made it clear that Roberts’ decision to find that ObamaCare was constitutional was political and nothing more – not a decision based on the Constitution or on the law.
The ObamaCare ruling was a legacy opinion for Roberts because he couldn’t take another wave of criticism like what he received from the liberal media, Obama and the Democrats after his ruling in the Citizens United case. Roberts caved in an obvious nod to the attacks on him. It was palpable and most unfortunate.
Roberts’ ObamaCare opinion had a quality of “oh by the way” and artificiality to it that was apparent to Supreme Court observers.
So Roberts’ pro-Democratic bias that we saw Wednesday is nothing new. It is, in fact, a repetition and a return to normal for him.
The chief justice was institutionally the wrong person to make his point in criticizing President Trump. If the point was to be made at all, it should have been made by the usual suspects: the American Bar Association, any well-known and respected lawyer, or a prominent media commentator or newspaper editorial page.
The candidates for attacking President Trump are numerous and inoffensive. Perhaps Roberts could have chosen his favorite Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. At any rate, he chose none of these options. One wonders why.
Why would Roberts insert himself, at this time, in this situation, to attack President Trump? He is a very smart man. This was not an accident or a coincidence.

Megyn Kelly Cartoons

Megyn Kelly finalizing $30M exit from NBC

Megyn Kelly is close to finalizing a $30 million exit from NBC, sources confirm to Page Six.
The embattled anchor, who celebrated her 48th birthday Sunday, was dumped from her 9 a.m. slot on “Today” last month after questioning why it was racist to wear blackface for Halloween.
And as she prepares to sign her exit deal, the mom of three is already planning her return to TV, Page Six has learned.
Sources say NBC owner Comcast will pay Kelly around $30 million. She signed a $69 million deal when she joined the network after leaving Fox News in 2017.
A source familiar with the negotiations said nothing will happen until next week at the earliest, admitting: “It’s taking slightly longer than expected, the paperwork is going back and forth.”
Another confirmed: “Everyone wants this to be over — both Megyn and NBC — and Comcast has the money to pay off Megyn. We thought this would be a done deal a few weeks ago.”
One senior TV source added: “NBC decided rather than fight and face a lawsuit from her, they — and more importantly, Comcast with all its money — decided to draw a line under the entire debacle and pay Megyn the full amount owed in her contract to go away.
“But this is far from the end of her TV career — in the Trump era, there are few broadcasters like her. Megyn would likely take a short break from TV and return to cable news ahead of the 2020 election.”
When Kelly — whose 9 a.m. hour had failed to win over viewers — made her comments, the backlash was immediate, with “Today” mainstay Al Roker lashing out at his colleague on air.
He said: “The fact is, while she apologized to the staff, she owes a bigger apology to folks of color around the country.
“This is a history going back to the 1830s — minstrel shows to demean and denigrate a race wasn’t right. I’m old enough to know, have lived through ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy,’ where you had white people in blackface playing two black characters, just magnifying the worst stereotypes about black people — and that’s what the problem is. That’s what the issue is.”
Reps for Kelly and NBC declined to comment.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez compares Sarah Palin to 'grandpa emails' in Twitter feud

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took aim at Sarah Palin on Tuesday, after Palin appeared to  mock the newly elected U.S. representative from New York on Twitter. (AP/Getty Images)

Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are trading barbs on Twitter.
“Now that’s *TWO* fallen GOP Vice Pres candidates going after a freshman Congresswoman that’s not even sworn in yet,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Isn’t it a little early to be bringing out the big guns? Especially when they look like the FWD:RE:FWD:WATCH THIS grandpa emails from the ‘08 election they lost.”
The spat began after Palin, running mate to Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008, tweeted on Monday: “YIKES: Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Basic Civics TWICE In 1 Statement.”
Palin’s tweet came alongside an article from governorpalin.org, which included a screenshot of a Twitter post from Ryan Saavedra, a reporter at The Daily Wire. The reporter on Sunday evening shared a video of Ocasio-Cortez making a mistake when talking about the government.
“If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2020, we can’t start working in 2020,”’ Ocasio-Cortez is heard saying on the video.
Ocasio-Cortez fired back, turning the conversation to health care.
“Maybe instead of Republicans drooling over every minute of footage of me in slow-mo, waiting to chop up word slips that I correct in real-tomd (sic), they actually step up enough to make the argument they want to make: that they don’t believe people deserve a right to healthcare,” she tweeted.
OCASIO-CORTEZ SAYS PEOPLE KEEP MISTAKING HER FOR A CAPITOL HILL INTERN
She later tweeted a correction of the spelling of “real-time.”
In a follow-up to her retort aimed at Palin, Ocasio-Cortez revealed on Twitter Tuesday that the other vice presidential candidate she had been referring to was “Lieberman,” seemingly referring to 2000 Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
She later tweeted: “For those who need their jokes explained to them: surprise! This tweet thread is humorous! The emoji in the original tweet signals that humor is indicated in the statement. :) (You know, because Lieberman killed the public option for healthcare and endorses Republicans).”
Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old Democratic socialist from New York, defeated her Republican challenger earlier this month in the midterm elections, becoming the youngest female elected to Congress.

Avenatti accuser claims he 'dragged' her on floor, court filing reportedly says

Attorney Michael Avenatti, right, poses with Mareli Miniutti for a photo at a party in New York. (AP)

The actress who was granted a temporary restraining order against attorney Michael Avenatti claimed that he "dragged" her on the floor and put her into a public hallway dressed only in a T-shirt and underwear, a report said, citing court documents.
In a sworn declaration, Mareli Miniutti, 24, said she and Avenatti, 47, dated from October 2017 to Nov. 13, the night Avenatti allegedly hit her in the face with pillows and followed her into a guest bedroom where she went to sleep alone, the New York Times reported.
Miniutti said they had an argument about money in his Los Angeles apartment.
“He dragged me on the floor of the apartment towards and out of the door into the public hallway,” she wrote in the declaration. “I was wearing only my underwear and a T-shirt at the time, and suffered scratches to the bare skin on my side and leg.”
Avenatti pulled Miniutti back into the apartment and blocked the door, the declaration reportedly said. She eventually left and said she spoke with building security. A friend picked her up and she called the police, the report said. The court filing includes photos that appears to show bruising and scratches, the paper reported.
Miniutti did not immediately respond to a Fox News request for comment.
Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence the next day and a judge granted Miniutti’s request for a temporary restraining order this week.
Avenatti denied the claims in a series of tweets Monday. He said he has never abused a woman and has called for the release of video footage from the building’s security cameras.
“I am a target,” he said. “And I will be exonerated.”
In a separate episode, Miniutti also claimed Avenatti had been drinking and pushed her out of a different apartment into a hallway, threw shoes at her and struck her in the leg.
She reportedly said the high-profile lawyer “has a history of being very verbally abusive and financially controlling towards me,” and that he “made promises to ‘take care of me’ financially and sometimes fails to follow through.”
A fierce critic of President Donald Trump, Avenatti has advocated on behalf of women’s rights and represented adult-film star Stormy Daniels, in a legal dispute against Trump.
“I continue to be afraid of” Avenatti, she wrote, according to the paper, "and do not want him to contact me."

Gowdy wants information on Ivanka Trump's use of personal email, sets December deadline

Outgoing House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly demanding information on Ivanka Trump’s reported use of personal email.
The letter, obtained by the Hill, follows the Washington Post report claiming that Trump sent hundreds of emails about White House business to contact “White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistant," an apparent violation of the Presidential Record Act. The report does not indicate if the emails contained any classified or sensitive government information.
Gowdy said in the letter that Trump’s use of personal email may “implicate the Presidential Records Act and other security and recordkeeping requirements,” and set a Dec. 5 deadline to respond to the request for more information.
“In light of the importance and necessity of preserving the public record and doing so in a manner that is reflective of relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, the Committee must assess whether the White House took adequate steps to archive Ms. Trump’s emails and prevent a recurrence,” Gowdy wrote in the letter.
The Republican’s letter may give a heads up to the incoming Democratic majority in the House that is gearing up to investigate both the daughter of the president and his close advisor Jared Kushner.
HOUSE DEMS TO PROBE IVANKA TRUMP, JARED KUSHNER AND USE OF PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS
Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who is expected to become the chairman of the committee in January, said Tuesday he also wants more information about Trump’s use of personal email.
“We launched a bipartisan investigation last year into White House officials’ use of private email accounts for official business, but the White House never gave us the information we requested,” Cummings said in a statement to Fox News.
“We need those documents to ensure that Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and other officials are complying with federal records laws and there is a complete record of the activities of this Administration,” he added.
IVANKA TRUMP’S LAWYER SLAMS ‘MISINFORMATION BEING PEDDLED’ AFTER REPORT THAT SHE USED PRIVATE EMAIL FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Trump’s lawyer criticized the media for peddling “misinformation” and pointed out the difference between Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email.
“To address misinformation being peddled about Ms. Trump’s personal email, she did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted, the account was never transferred or housed at Trump Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules,” said Peter Mirijanian, the spokesperson for Trump's ethics lawyer Abbe Lowell, in a statement to Fox News.
“When concerns were raised in the press 14 months ago, Ms. Trump reviewed and verified her email use with White House Counsel and explained the issue to congressional leaders,” he added.
President Trump echoed the lawyer on Tuesday as well, saying that “Ivanka did some emails” but they “weren't classified like Hillary Clinton, they weren't deleted like Hillary Clinton.”
He added that Ivanka “wasn't' doing anything to hide her emails. They're all in presidential records.”

Michael Avenatti Cartoons

Legions of Democrats drawing headlines just by eyeing the White House

It's the easiest layup in Democratic politics.
All a politician needs to do to generate some good press is hint, insinuate, ruminate — or simply not deny — a desire to run for president.
Now some of these people will launch campaigns, others are simply flirting, and still others don't have the faintest possibility of being taken seriously. But it doesn't matter: they all get some ink
The late Russell Baker used to write about the Great Mentioner, how up-and-coming pols would mysteriously be designated by the press as presidential timber. But that no longer matters. In the social media age, they get to mention themselves — and reporters invariably follow.
Maybe the Democrats — figuring hey, Donald Trump did it — will wind up with a field so massive that it will make the GOP's 17 contenders last time look like an elite club.
One reason for the recent wave of stories is that potential candidates feel liberated to show a little leg after the midterms. Before Nov. 6, they engaged in a sanctioned form of lying, saying the idea of a White House bid never crossed their minds, even as journalists and voters alike knew that was basically bull.
Take newly reelected Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who bucked a red tide in his state:
"After insisting for years that a run for president was far off his radar — Mr. Brown has begun wondering aloud if he should have the world’s most important job after all."
And here’s the pitch, in The New York Times:
"Rumpled and unvarnished — with a fondness for sweatshirts, less so for ties — Mr. Brown would in some ways seem uniquely positioned in a party hoping to win back the Midwestern states that flipped to Mr. Trump. Throughout his political career, he has championed populist platitudes like the 'dignity of work' that have resonated with working-class voters in all corners of Ohio while also supporting liberal social causes like women's reproductive rights and L.G.B.T.Q. rights."
The same goes for New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who the Times says has undergone "a notable shift ... Less than three weeks ago, in the lone debate of her re-election campaign, Ms. Gillibrand pledged to serve her full Senate term."
Right after the election, Gillibrand told Stephen Colbert that "the hatred and the division" she said was caused by Trump "has called me to fight as hard as I possibly can to restore the moral compass of this country."
And Elizabeth Warren, after years of denials, said weeks ago she was taking a "hard look" at a presidential run.
What's more, you don't even have to win your race to have your hat thrown into the proverbial ring. Ted Cruz beat Beto O'Rourke by 3 points, but it's the Texas Democrat who's getting the media love. That includes yesterday's Politico piece with this blind-quote headline: "He's Barack Obama, But White."
O’Rourke is “scrambling” the Democratic field, having raised $70 million in the Lone Star State, “his closer-than-expected performance in the largest red state on the map was credited with lifting at least two Democrats to victory over House Republican incumbents.” A Politico/Morning Consult poll had him third among Democratic voters, behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
A Boston Globe column was titled "Beto O’Rourke Lost the Election, But He’s Getting the Most Presidential Buzz."
Thanks to the media, of course. O’Rourke says he hasn't made any decisions. I know, Abe Lincoln won the White House after losing a Senate race, but that was a long time ago.
The list goes on. The Washington Examiner says "Kamala Harris will have a digital army behind her if she runs for 2020."
Julian Castro is also being "mentioned." In fact, says the AP, "Castro has spent much of his political career being discussed as a potential presidential candidate since he was elected San Antonio mayor at age 34 ... Julian Castro would be a prominent Latino candidate in the 2020 field."
Mike Bloomberg has been toying with a presidential bid since stepping down as New York mayor, but never quite seems to do it, despite the pundits pining for him. In fact, the Republican-turned-independent recently re-registered as a Democrat. One person in touch with Bloomberg thinks he’ll make the run, but his "centrist" policies are likely to clash with the Democrats’ left wing. Oh, and he’ll be 78 on Election Day.
This Times op-ed in favor of Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper sort of captures the anyone-can-try ethos:
"Governor Hickenlooper, an optimistic, pro-business, pragmatic centrist, might seem, at first, like a long shot for the Democratic nomination. But then, in considering a post-Trump era, it is hard to imagine anything."
Nor do you need to be a politician. Politico informs us that "Marianne Williamson — pal of Oprah, spirituality guru and fixture of Hollywood's New Age community" — has been visiting Iowa. If nothing else, this should help her rack up more best-selling books on spirituality.
And I haven't even mentioned those touted in a Washington Post write-up: Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, John Delaney (don't ask), and Hillary Clinton herself (she's making noises.)
And no handicapping list would be complete without Michael Avenatti, whose nascent bid suffered a tiny setback with his arrest on domestic violence allegations, which if true means he wouldn't even get Stormy Daniels' vote.
Look, you never know who might catch fire. Barack Obama wasn't exactly a leading contender in 2004, and few geniuses saw Trump as president the day he came down the golden escalator.
But one thing is undeniably true: These wannabes and many others know that the press cares far more about any public figure who harbors presidential ambitions. That's why it suddenly seems like every unindicted Democrat is pondering a 2020 campaign.

University staff told not to use ‘don’t’ or ‘frightening’ capital letters

Journalism professors at Leeds Trinity University have been told not to use "don't" or "frightening" capitals, according to reports. (Leeds Trinity University via Facebook)

Journalism professors at Leeds Trinity University in the UK have been instructed not to use certain words — in case they frighten sensitive students.
According to UK media reports, the use of capital letters has been banned as well as the “overuse” of the words “do” and “don’t”.
In an internal staff memo obtained by the Express, staff are told students’ “anxiety” can lead to academic failure.
“Despite our best attempts to explain assessment tasks, any lack of clarity can generate anxiety and even discourage students from attempting the assessment at all,” it reads.
“Generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis and the overuse of ‘do’, and, especially, ‘DON’T’.
It also urged staff to be “explicit about any inexplicitness” in assignment requirements and to be aware that “misconceptions or misunderstandings quickly spread” among students.
“This can lead to further confusion and students may even then decide that the assessment is too difficult and not attempt it,” the statement reads.
The story quickly spread across the UK media as well as on social media, with many members of the public slamming it as extreme “political correctness” pandering to the “snowflake generation.”
It follows similar news in September, when The University of Manchester’s student union made global headlines after voting to ban clapping and cheering at certain events in order to avoid triggering those with anxiety or sensory issues.
Instead, students were urged to use “jazz hands”.
“It was argued that the loud noise of traditional clapping and whooping pose an issue to students with anxiety or sensory issues. BSL clapping — or, jazz hands — would be a more inclusive form of expression,” student newspaper the Mancunion reported.
In a bizarre twist, Leeds Trinity University released a statement claiming it had not banned capital letters — but confirmed “it is best practice not to write in all capital letters.”
But many social media users pointed out there was little difference between “banning” words and capital letters and asking staff not to use them.
In a statement, vice-chancellor Margaret House said the university was committed to supporting students to be “the very best they can be”.
“We’re proud to offer a personal and inclusive university experience that gives every student the support to realise their potential,” she said.
“We follow national best practice teaching guidelines and the memo cited in the press is guidance from a course leader to academic staff, sharing best practice from the latest teaching research to inform their teaching.
“For every assignment, academic staff have an ‘unpacking’ session with students so the students are clear on what is expected. The majority of universities do this. It is also about good communication and consistent style. For example, it is best practice not to write in all capital letters regardless of the sector.
“We are absolutely committed to enhancing and enriching the student learning experience at Leeds Trinity, where staff and students are a name not a number.”
The public university is located near Leeds in England’s West Yorkshire.
It has a student population of more than 3625 and offers foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate degrees in a range of humanities and social sciences.