King Charles III thanked the British people for "the greatest possible coronation gift" on Monday as three days of celebrations for the historic event drew to a...

A landlady has been accused of “outrageous” and “control freakish” behaviour for setting unusually harsh restrictions for prospective tenants. The homeowner used an estate agent to advertise her two “spacious, sun-drenched” apartments in Brooklyn, New York, which were valued at $4,500 (£3,580) and $5,750 (£4,490) per month. When you’re charging such eye-watering rates, you’d hope these flats – with “spectacular outdoor spaces” – would be pretty exceptional homes. And yet, for many interested parties, the dream was shattered when they spotted that the “wonderful vegan landlord” had one eye-catching house rule: “No meat/fish in the building." Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Andrea Kelly, the agent managing the flat, explained to the New York Times (NYT) why the landlady had made such a strict stipulation. She told the paper that the apartments weren’t, technically, “vegetarian-only,” but added that “the owner lives in the building and doesn’t want the smell of cooking meat drifting upstairs.” To be fair, this means that tenants could enjoy the likes of sushi, ham sandwiches and even meaty takeaways without causing a scene. But woe betide anyone harbouring hopes of a Sunday roast or sausages barbecued in their “spectacular outdoor space”. The owner, Michal Arieh Lerer, refused to speak to a NYT reporter about her controversial regulation, but her ex-husband, who co-owns the building and is also vegan, admitted that they’d refused to rent their property out to keen carnivorous cooks since they bought it in 2007. “It’s not about discrimination,” ex-husband Motti Lerer insisted. “You have to fit into the building.” For anyone wondering whether this could legally be classed as discrimination, the answer is, perhaps surprisingly, no. New York’s Human Rights Law lists 14 characteristics that landlords must not consider when choosing a potential tenant. These include age, race, family status, and sexual orientation – there's no mention of dietary preferences. Lucas A. Ferrara, an adjunct professor at New York Law School told the NYT that an interested renter might be able to fight the meat ban if they could prove that they had a medical condition which required some sort of “reasonable accommodation” on the landlord’s part. Still, we’re not familiar with many illnesses whose sufferer needs to regularly fry steaks or grill fish as a matter of urgency. The original listing which caused such a stir was taken down from nextdoor.com on Friday, a day after it was posted. However, the apartments are still listed on the estate agent’s own site, although there’s no mention of the cooked veg-only policy. The listings do note: “Cats welcome on a case-by-case basis (only one, please).” We just hope those felines are happy to forgo mouse hunts or particularly pungent meal pouches, for their sake. Social media commentators have shared their horror at the meat-free rule, with a number suggesting Lerer "shouldn't be a landlord". One Facebook user wrote: "[She] can’t just tell people they can’t cook meat in a home they rent off [her]. It’s like telling a kid they can not play with toys." Another said: "Well I hope they/them enjoy paying the mortgage when they get no tenants." But a third suggested tenants should just find a way around the restrictions. "[Her] property, [her] rules," they pointed out, before adding: "If you lie to [her] and cook meat while [she] doesn't get to know then it's a win-win situation." Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Arizona officials and the Democratic governor have urged a judge to throw out Republican Kari Lake’s last remaining election misconduct claim

Violent crime is on the rise in the US capital, where a 28-percent uptick in homicides this year has left researchers...

By Jonathan Stempel A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state's ban on magazines that hold

The family of Christian Glass, who called 911 after his car got stuck and was later shot and killed by police, will receive a $19m payout – the largest payout for police misconduct in the history of Colorado. Mr Glass was shot and killed in Silver Plume, west of Denver in the central parts of the state, in the summer of last year. Four local governments in the state will each pay parts of the settlement to reach the record amount. In addition to the funds, the family will also receive assurances that the state and its police agencies are enacting measures to ensure a similar incident doesn’t occur again, according to 9News. Mr Glass called 911 on 10 June last year after his car got stuck on a road in the small town, a former silver mining camp. Seven officers from five agencies responded. Mr Glass was shot and killed an hour and ten minutes after he had called for a mental health check. He told the officers on several occasions that he was scared to open the door of the car or to roll down his window, but the police still attempted to get Mr Glass to get out of the vehicle. Clear Creek County Deputy Andrew Buen, who has since left the job, broke the passenger-side window, Tased Mr Glass, and shot him with bean bags, which were non-lethal. Officers have said that Mr Glass then reached out with a small knife, prompting Officer Buen to shoot him five times, killing Mr Glass. His parents, Simon and Sally Glass, said in a statement via their lawyers that they hope that the settlement will work as a message that injustice will not be accepted and that those responsible for their son’s death will be held accountable, including the officers who didn’t act to protect Mr Glass. The family has said previously that they wanted further indictments for those offices. University of California, Los Angeles law professor Dr Joanna Schwartz told 9News that “$19m is a lot of money”. “I think this agency will be thinking carefully about how it operates in the future, and other departments in the region and across the country are also going to take notice of this suit. But I think it’s the noneconomic changes that will most directly impact the department in the immediate future,” she added. Clear Creek County, Officer Buen’s former department, has the largest payout – $10m. As part of the settlement with the county, Mr Glass’s parents will get to speak to new patrol recruits joining the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Office. The county is also set to create a crisis response team before 1 January 2025. The co-responder programme across the county will couple mental health workers with paramedics to respond to calls along with police to make sure that what took place in the case of Mr Glass doesn’t occur again. Dr Schwartz told 9News that in many instances, police agencies aren’t interested or willing to agree to settlements like this one. “I really haven’t heard of another settlement that involves the parents actually themselves speaking to officers, which is truly novel in my experience,” she told the local station. More follows...

When Scout Frank lost her mother, she knew she needed to keep her close -- and hit upon the perfect solution when she found she could have...

A bipartisan group of Nevada lawmakers has introduced a bill that would give massive tax credits to expand film production in southern Nevada

Local elections are taking place this weekend in 79 regions of Russia

Divers have recovered the flight data recorder from an Australia army helicopter that crashed at sea during a military exercise with the United States last month

NatWest Group Plc is reeling from the resignations of two high-level, veteran executives following missteps that placed them

Sales on the secondary-ticket market were surging for Saturday night’s Las Vegas Grand Prix