Thirty years ago, Hollywood gave us a blue face-painted, kilt-wearing warrior who became a global icon of rebellion. The film Braveheart tells the story of William Wallace, a heroic figure who fought for Scottish freedom against the tyrannical King Edward I. It was a massive hit, but as presenter Professor Michael Livingstone – a conflict analyst from America – puts it, in terms of history, it’s “rubbish”. So, who was the real William Wallace? What do we truly know about this great Scottish rebel? In History Hit’s new documentary, Rebels: William Wallace, Professor Michael Livingstone travels the length and breadth of the UK on a quest to find out more about the man behind the legend. Sign up to watch An enigma, a minor nobleman For a figure so central to Scottish history, William Wallace’s early life is an enigma. He doesn’t appear in the historical record until 1296, when he bursts onto the scene as a rebel leader. This lack of information has allowed myth and legend to rush in and fill the void. Much of the story we think we know comes from a 15th-century poem, The Wallace, written by a poet known as Blind Harry, nearly 200 years after Wallace’s death. However, as Michael discovers, if you know where to look, clues to the real man do exist. Sources suggest his father was named Alan Wallace, which would mean William was a Lowlander, not a Highlander, indicating he was a minor nobleman – a far cry from the village commoner portrayed in the film ‘Braveheart’. The spark of rebellion In the late 13th century, a royal succession crisis gripped Scotland, leaving it on the brink of civil war. When King Edward I of England was invited to settle the matter, he used the opportunity to install a puppet king, John Balliol, and effectively seize control of Scotland. Edward’s invading army forced the Scottish nobles to swear oaths of fealty to him after the Battle of Dunbar, yet William Wallace, as a lesser nobleman, was untouched by these political manoeuvres – a freedom that would prove crucial. Professor Michael Livingstone with an original Oath of Fealty to Edward I.Image Credit: National Records Office / History Hit Believing the problem to be over, Edward left Scotland in September 1296, appointing two Englishmen, John de Warenney and Hugh de Cressingham, as guardian and treasurer of Scotland respectively. Edward removed the Scottish crown jewels to Westminster, and kept leading Scottish nobles in captivity. But Scotland remained a simmering pot of unrest and when Edward allowed his men to exploit the common people, it was the final straw for Wallace. To find out more about the first steps of Wallace’s rebellion, Michael heads to Edinburgh, and talks to Dr Fiona Watson. They discuss how in May 1297, Wallace made his first move: a small, but powerful act of defiance at Lanark, where he and his men attacked and killed the English Sheriff. This seemingly minor incident was the first ripple in a wave of rebellion. Wallace wasn’t alone in his fight; pockets of revolt were flaring up across the country, most notably in the north under another rebel leader, Andrew Moray. Stirling Bridge: The battle that changed everything As the flames of rebellion burned brighter, Edward sailed to France to continue his wars on the continent, yet the English army marched north, determined to crush the Scots once and for all at Stirling, a strategic town often deemed the “key to Scotland.” Here, at a narrow bridge over the River Forth, the two forces would meet. As Michael explains, “A battle is its ground. You can’t understand how a clash unfolds without understanding its terrain”. He explores the battlefield terrain with conflict archaeologist Professor Tony Pollard, discussing the various advantages and disadvantages each side had, and the importance of the Scottish spear. On 11 September 1297, the English army, confident in their superior numbers and equipment, made a catastrophic mistake. Led by a non-military commander, they poured onto the narrow bridge, failing to see the deadly trap set by the Scots. Wallace and Moray’s spearmen waited patiently, then, with astonishing speed, pushed the English toward the river, unleashing carnage. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was a stunning success for the Scots. Whilst Moray died from his battle wounds, the Scots’ victory propelled Wallace to fame, and he was soon knighted and appointed Guardian of Scotland – the rebel was now a ruler. Site of the Battle of Stirling Bridge, showing the meandering River Forth which played a crucial role in the Scots’ victory. (The Wallace Monument can be seen in the background, atop the hill where the Scottish forces had gathered.Image Credit: History Hit The fall and a lasting legacy However, Wallace’s triumph was short-lived. For King Edward, this was no longer a campaign for Scotland; it was a campaign against one man. Less than a year later, at the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace’s forces were crushed in a devastating defeat, a loss some historians attribute to him misapplying the very tactics that won at Stirling Bridge. Though Wallace escaped the field alive, his spirit was broken. He resigned as Guardian and disappeared, likely to the Continent to seek aid from England’s enemies, until returning to Scotland in the early 1300s. In 1305, after relentless campaigning, Edward I declared he would pardon all Scottish lords who had opposed him – except for William Wallace. Soon after, on 5 August 1305 Wallace was captured near Glasgow and taken to Westminster for a show trial. Wallace was accused of treason, a charge he denied, stating that he owed no allegiance to a foreign king. He was also accused of murdering monks and women, a charge which today would be classed as war crimes. Wallace vehemently denied this too, but was found guilty and, on 23 August 1305, sentenced to a horrific death, being hung, drawn and quartered. Later in the programme, Michael heads to the National Archives to examine a document from the time, an exchequer roll detailing the cost of Wallace’s brutal execution. The document gives us a unique glimpse into the English perception of Wallace, who they believed wanted to make himself King of Scots. Professor Michael Livingstone and Dr Jessica Nelson, Head of Collections at the National Archives, view an exchequer roll which describes details about William Wallace’s death.Image Credit: National Archives / History Hit While Wallace lost his fight and his life, his legacy did not die with him. His rebellion is now seen as the mid-point of the First War of Scottish Independence, and the seeds he planted inspired others, most notably Robert the Bruce, who learned from Wallace’s mistakes at Falkirk to achieve a decisive victory at Bannockburn. Centuries later, Wallace’s memory lives on in statues, stories and in poetry from figures such as Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. As Michael Livingstone notes, in his afterlife, Wallace “became a symbol for Scots’ pride, a figurehead around which people can organise even today”. Join Michael Livingstone on a journey to find the real man behind the legend in Rebels: William Wallace. Sign up to watch

Troll or Truth? DoJ Mulling Bar on Firearms for Transgenders, and ... I Have Questions

On the Wednesday edition of his eponymous NewsNation show, host Chris Cuomo took a rare swipe at his former employer, CNN and seemingly storied chief international affairs correspondent Clarissa Ward for giving attention to a dubious group of purported “scholars” who claimed Israel was carrying out a “genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza. Cuomo blew up the erroneous accusations by pointing to the facts on the ground and how the group weren’t actually scholars and broke their own regulations in order to reach their conclusion. Cuomo started his opening monologue lamenting how “it's hard to be reasonable” and “much easier to be rash and that's why we see such extreme positions all the time.” He would build off that premise by turning his attention to the so-called International Association of Genocide Scholars, which issued a resolution asserting that Israel was committing a genocide. With images of Ward up on the screen, he noted that many people had sent him video of “an old colleague of mine at CNN” who was “calling out the lack of attention to it that we all have a responsibility.”     “Now, I respect this reporter tremendously and the situation that we are all witnessing. But the lack of attention, the responsibility is really about how faulty this resolution is and calling it out,” he countered. Cuomo proceeded to deliver body blow after body blow as he pointed to the facts that less than a third of the organization was involved in the decision, they didn’t have their usual debate, and their “scholars” were just “artists and activists” with one calling for the assassination of Israeli officials: First, the headline, 90 percent of 500 genocide scholars say Israel is committing genocide, man. That is damning. If it's true, but it isn't. Less than a third of the membership voted. Just 28 percent. And one member told us why did so few vote, because they felt unqualified to judge. Now, you go look at the different renditions of this story and you will see how few are saying what I just told you, which is a matter of fact. Why do you think that is? The report also does not mention that the group usually debates and then votes. Here, no debate. Why not? Isn’t that what academics do? I may be using the wrong word too by calling them academics or scholars. Why? Because not all were experts let alone scholars, some are just artists and activists, including one doctor who said Israeli and American officials “need to be taken out” and “neutralized.” That certainly didn’t sound like the group was made up of cool-headed academics and scholars. The group also didn’t seem to rely on trustworthy facts. Cuomo drew attention who how they relied on “an official U.N. estimate” that “the IDF has killed more than 59,000 in Gaza.” He noted that the U.N. only cited one source for that figure, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Cuomo also highlighted how the group took the words of former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant out of context to suggest he viewed Palestinians as a whole as “animals.” “Now, Gallant says he was referring to a Hamas, not all Palestinians. But that context isn't included. We actually found it somewhere else,” he said. Cuomo went on to argue that “this push to call this a genocide” by the so-called scholars and CNN was “another example of the increasing extremist thinking in our politics. Everything is exaggerated for effect in our politics. And this is very dangerous.” “Here's the reality,” he declared. “Do you remember when the Nazis allowed all those Jews to stay safe in Germany during the holocaust? Me neither, because they rounded up all they could, brutalized, massacred, burned. That’s genocide. Like Hamas did on October 7.” Seemingly speaking directly to Ward, Cuomo dressed down her faux righteousness: “So, yeah, I’ll report about this resolution. I don't think the organization is what they say they are. I don't think the facts are what they say they are. And I don't think the conclusion deserves the regard that they want to give it.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo September 3, 2025 8:01:07 p.m. Eastern CHRIS CUOMO: Chris Cuomo here. Welcome to NewsNation where right and left come to be reasonable. A tonight, we have proof that man, it's hard to be reasonable. It is much easier to be rash and that's why we see such extreme positions all the time. So, I start off with this first issue: the president made a new play for peace in the Middle East. Did you see what he put out? “Tell Hamas to immediately” – all caps – “give back all 20 hostages, not 2 or 5 or 7 and things will change rapidly. It will end.” Wish he was right, I also wish he had added that Hamas must surrender to end this war. They started it and constantly say they will attack again. Now, I'm not saying ‘they started it’ like a child. I'm saying it because only then will the onus - Okay? The burden shift to Israel to stop the war. They have their people back. There is surrender. That must be peace. And there is no questioning that this has gone on too long and has been too destructive to too much and too many. It is a sickening state of affairs. I have covered it from the beginning and long before from all sides. I have been there. I have donated openly to you to the kids who are affected in Gaza. There are no clean hands in war. But many disagree with our president and say Israel is the most to blame because they are conducting a genocide and that latest in – The latest in the story is that that claim went from an opinion to a resolution, like a matter of fact, because of what we just learned from the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Many sent word to me of their resolution, especially a clip from an old colleague of mine at CNN, the first western reporter to show us this war-torn Gaza. Now, she's reporting this group's resolution and calling out the lack of attention to it that we all have a responsibility. Now, I respect this reporter tremendously and the situation that we are all witnessing. But the lack of attention, the responsibility is really about how faulty this resolution is and calling it out. And I'll give you the facts and you can feel any way you want. First, the headline, 90 percent of 500 genocide scholars say Israel is committing genocide, man. That is damning. If it's true, but it isn't. Less than a third of the membership voted. Just 28 percent. And one member told us why did so few vote, because they felt unqualified to judge. Now, you go look at the different renditions of this story and you will see how few are saying what I just told you, which is a matter of fact. Why do you think that is? The report also does not mention that the group usually debates and then votes. Here, no debate. Why not? Isn’t that what academics do? I may be using the wrong word too by calling them academics or scholars. Why? Because not all were experts let alone scholars, some are just artists and activists, including one doctor who said Israeli and American officials “need to be taken out” and “neutralized.” Now, this fact sheds light on this reckless introductory statement or salvo, the way I see it, that the group made. According to official U.N. estimates, the IDF has killed more than 59,000 in Gaza. Now, that's a number of 59,000 that you see all the time on social media. An official U.N. estimate. What does that mean? Go to the U.N. website. They list a single source for this official estimate. And you know what it is? The Gaza Ministry of Health. You know, controls that? Hamas. The key to the finding is that Israel has the intent to kill all Gazans. What is their lead piece of proof? What do they tell you first? Israel's former defense minister, Gallant is his last name, who said Israel is fighting human animals. Now, Gallant says he was referring to a Hamas, not all Palestinians. But that context isn't included. We actually found it somewhere else. Here's my take. I see this push to call this a genocide as another example of the increasing extremist thinking in our politics. Everything is exaggerated for effect in our politics. And this is very dangerous. And it really is just about politics. Here's the reality. Do you remember when the Nazis allowed all those Jews to stay safe in Germany during the holocaust? Me neither, because they rounded up all they could, brutalized, massacred, burned. That’s genocide. Like Hamas did on October 7. Right now, do you know who are living as full citizens, working, raising families, and voting in Israel? Arabs; 20 percent of Israel's population, most of Palestinian descent. Why do they let any aid in at all? Why warned of attacks? Why treat the wounded? Why not go in on the ground and take out as many as they can? If this is their intention, that's the question that you have to ask. So, yeah, I’ll report about this resolution. I don't think the organization is what they say they are. I don't think the facts are what they say they are. And I don't think the conclusion deserves the regard that they want to give it. But you tell me. (…)

Puck’s Dylan Byers dropped the bombshell Wednesday night that the rumored deal was “on the 1-yard-line” for CBS News’s parent company SkyDance to acquire former New York Times writer Bari Weiss’s indefatigable site The Free Press and grant Weiss a senior role inside CBS News. Predictably, this has and will continue to send liberal journalists both inside the network and outside it into hissy fits that will dwarf one-time CNN boss Chris Licht’s failed desires (and orders from his superiors at Warner Bros. Discovery) to return the network to a serious news outlet and not a Trump hate factory. Byers wrote that, for nearly a year, SkyDance boss David Ellison “has been courting” “an acquisition of The Free Press, the defiantly heterodox news and opinion media entity founded by Bari Weiss.” “Those talks have progressed in recent days, and I am now told that the two sides have agreed in principle to a deal and lawyers are hard at work finalizing a formal agreement. David’s offer for The Free Press is expected to be well above the site’s most recent $100 million valuation, but well below the $200 million figure that was recently floated in the Financial Times,” he added. Weiss — who quit The Times in 2020 following sustained bullying for both being Jewish and defending the publication of Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) infamous op-ed — “will land...a king’s ransom just a little over five years” later and while “[t]he deal is not done yet, of course, but, as a source with knowledge of the negotiations told me this afternoon, it is ‘on the 1-yard line.’” In a hilarious subhead “It’s Not Dan Rather’s Network Anymore,” Byers revealed Weiss would have “a role at CBS News that would, among other things, task his fellow Millennial with guiding the editorial direction of the division” that would create obvious “blowback” at the “self-important” network given “her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition.” Byers then showed he’s plugged into the industry better than anyone (click “expand”): If the lifers at CNN threatened to burn the place down when Chris Licht moved his office to a different floor, imagine the looming hysteria that will transfix CBS News. Assumedly, for Ellison, employee migration is also part of the point. David probably looks at CBS News as a bit of a blank canvas. It’s a declining business, a cost burden, and, as recent history has made abundantly clear, a potentially massive P.R. headache...Why not take a flier on a format that’s economically inconsequential and eroding regardless? (....) Even as he is poised to scale down the business, reduce talent salaries, and make it a leaner, trimmer operation, David is also poised to bring on a politically divisive marquee talent who might infuse the brand with a bold new identity and, frankly, at least make the network interesting again. Former CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy was apoplectic at his newsletter site Status, whining this move by Ellison would be “revealing and hypocritical” given his early comments about wanting to depoliticize the network. He further screeched about Weiss for the crime of being a “stridently pro-Israel, proudly  anti-‘woke’ culture warrior” and “built her brand on polarizing political commentary—supposedly the type of material Ellison signaled to reporters that he wishes to run away from.” Because he almost certainly has allies inside the network, Darcy declared “CBS News staffers are already buzzing—and bracing—for impact” as the “home” of “Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite now faces the prospect of being reshaped by a figure who has built her entire career around polarizing politics.” He found CBS News staffers to say they were “[n]ot happy AT ALL” and predict what Darcy dubbed “a firestorm inside the newsroom, especially over coverage of Israel and Gaza” and “some employees would be ‘apoplectic’ at the idea of taking editorial direction from her.” And there it was. CBS News journalists are happy that a Jewish woman would be in a senior news position. Darcy then showed his truly troubling hatred of tens of millions of people, arguing they possess an inability to think at all (click “expand”): [I]t’s hard to preach to staffers who will have to bid adieu to longtime colleagues that belt-tightening and fiscal responsibility are important while simultaneously shelling out an absurd premium for a commentary site founded by someone who loves to bash the press. For employees already demoralized by years of cutbacks, the optics will certainly be enraging. And make no mistake: this isn’t about financial prudence. It’s about politics...The Free Press isn’t a strategic acquisition, it’s a political flare being fired into a darkening sky. Ellison appears determined to replicate the John Malone playbook at CNN: nudge the newsroom into a posture more deferential to Trump, launder that shift as “balance,” and hope the MAGA crowd will suddenly reward him. But this formula is already tired and simply doesn’t work. Meddling at CNN, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times has only destabilized those institutions. It chases away the core audience, while failing to win over the right-wing demographic...These audiences celebrate the destabilization of news institutions...because they despise them and want to see them burn to ash. (....) Truth-based news organizations cannot win over the MAGA crowd because those who comprise it prefer to live in a safe space in which pesky facts are replaced by politically convenient gobbledygook.

Several members of the Senate Finance Committee tried desperately during a hearing on Thursday about President Donald Trump's 2026 health care agenda to paint Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as both a "charlatan" and as a danger to public health.Like the mutineers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who revolted over Susan Monarez's removal last week as their director, Democratic lawmakers — Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Maggie Hassan (N.H.) in particular — and a few Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.), quickly discovered that Kennedy wasn't willing to play their games.'You are lying.'In addition to highlighting recent victories at the Department of Health and Human Services such as recent reductions to bureaucratic waste and the obliteration of the DEI regime, Kennedy informed the committee at the outset, "We are ending gain-of-function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. We are addressing cellphone use in schools, excessive screen time for youths, the lack of nutrition education in our medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others." — (@) Rather than dwell on these or other recent positive developments at the HHS, Hassan, like other Democrats on the committee, instead focused her attack on Kennedy's approach to vaccines.Hassan, whom Open Secrets indicated has received over $1 million in campaign donations from the health professional industry and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry, claimed that Kennedy "acted behind closed doors to overrule scientists and limit the freedom of parents to choose the COVID vaccine for their children" and "unilaterally changed the parameters for giving vaccines.""This is crazy talk," Kennedy said. "You're just making stuff up."Hassan appears to have been grossly misrepresenting recent actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration.RELATED: RFK Jr. makes crystal clear to the CDC mutineers: The restoration of public trust 'won't stop' Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images FDA Commissioner Marty Makary noted in a recent op-ed that his agency has "approved COVID-19 vaccines for adults over 65 and for people 6 months and older who have one or more risk factors that put them at high risk of severe COVID," thereby bringing "the U.S. in line with peer nations."Makary underscored that "the FDA can't regulate the practice of medicine. The FDA grants marketing authorizations, but doctors are able to prescribe drugs off label to people at low risk. In a few states, pharmacists may require a prescription."In other words, parents still enjoy the freedom to choose the COVID vaccine for their children even though Makary indicated his agency is not confident that the benefits outweigh the risks."Since the FDA isn't approving a vaccine for the healthy school-age and working population, college and school mandates will be legally impossible," Makary wrote. "Accordingly, the FDA is revoking the emergency-use authorization for COVID vaccines. The emergency is over. The FDA will now return to an evidence-based standard."Kennedy told Hassan on Thursday that the decisions about the COVID vaccines were not made "behind closed doors. The industry makes the studies, and they could not provide a study that said it is effective for healthy kids.""You're just making stuff up, Senator," Kennedy said.RELATED: Florida’s fight for medical freedom targets vaccine mandates SementsovaLesia/Getty Images Hassan prompted a laugh from the health secretary by responding with, "Sometimes when you make an accusation, it's kind of a confession, Mr. Kennedy."Despite the continued ability of Americans to get the COVID vaccines, Hassan suggested again that "people who want to exercise their freedom of choice are being denied that because you are citing data that you won't produce to the public and you are rejecting science.""You are making things up to scare people, and it's a lie," Kennedy said. "You are lying."'I know you've taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator.'Elizabeth Warren picked up where Hassan left off, willfully conflating FDA approval for COVID vaccines with their general availability."Last week, you announced that the COVID-19 vaccine is no longer approved for healthy people under the age of 65," Warren said. "In announcing the change, you said that the vaccine will be available for anyone who wants it. Now obviously, both things cannot be true at the same moment.""Anybody can get it," Kennedy said. "It's not recommended for healthy people."When Warren started down another rabbit hole, insinuating that an insurance company's refusal to cover a drug on the basis of pulled FDA approval is the same as a governmental denial of vaccines, Kennedy told her flatly, "I'm not going to recommend a product for which there's no clinical data for that indication. Would you?""I know you've taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator," Kennedy added, possibly answering his own question.According to Open Secrets, Warren received $818,997 from “pharmaceuticals/health products" sources during the 2020 campaign cycle. Between 2019 and 2024, Warren's Senate campaign committee and leadership PAC have also reportedly received $131,329 from the pharmaceutical industry; $528,320 from the health professional industry; and $109,924 from the hospital/nursing home industry.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On the third and final day of the National Conservatism conference, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) gave an uncompromising speech on the dangers of AI-fueled transhumanism. From 1950s eugenicists to the tech overlords of Silicon Valley today, Hawley addressed many of the dark undercurrents seething below the surface of the AI revolution. In a telling moment, Hawley emphasized that AI is continuously being curated to serve the powerful transhumanist leaders in Silicon Valley and the government: "AI is fulfilling transhumanist goals, whatever its boosters may personally believe, and if it proceeds in this way undirected, if it proceeds in this manner unchecked, the tech barons, already the most powerful people on the planet, will be more powerful than ever."'Large language models have already trained on enough copyrighted works to fill the Library of Congress 22 times over.'Hawley revealed a shocking statistic about large language models and the amount of data that they have accrued: "Large language models have already trained on enough copyrighted works to fill the Library of Congress 22 times over. Let me just put a finer point on that. AI's LLMs have ingested every published word in every language known to man already." RELATED: Reddit bars Internet Archive from its website, sparking access concerns Photo by Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesFor reference, the Library of Congress had roughly 178 million items in its collection as of 2023. Companies and individuals have begun to raise privacy and copyright concerns around AI companies scraping the internet to train the LLMs. For instance, Reddit cracked down on the Internet Archive last month over this very issue. Hawley has been dogged in bringing congressional pressure to bear on Big Tech companies. Most recently, last month, he launched a probe into questions surrounding how Meta's chatbot may allow minors to engage with "romantic" and "sensual" content. In July, he reached across the aisle to co-sponsor a bipartisan bill to block AIs from training on copyrighted works without authors' permission.Addressing the audience, Hawley said, "As I look out across the room and see many authors, all of your works have already been taken. Did they consult you? Doubt it. Do they compensate you? Of course not. This is wrong. This is dangerous. I say we should empower human beings to create, to protect the very human data that they create."While the pathways toward protecting Americanism, as he called the defense of liberty in his speech, are narrowing, they are not yet closed. "How do we do it? Assign property rights to specific forms of data. Create legal liability for the companies who use that data. And let's fully repeal Section 230. Open the courtroom doors, allow people to sue for their rights being taken away, including suing companies and actors and individuals who use AI. We must add sensible guardrails to the emergent AI economy and hold concentrated economic power to account."Drawing from the lessons of humility and humanity reaching back as far as the "Epic of Gilgamesh," Hawley warned of the dangers of the transcendence that transhumanism is seeking. "Our limits make us something better and powerful that make us good, and they keep us free, because there's only one God. We allow no man or class of men to rule over us. We rule ourselves together as equals. That is the American way. It always has been. Let's keep it so for this age and beyond. God bless you."

Police Scotland has charged a man and a woman in connection with the young, axe-wielding Scottish girl who went viral online.In late August, a 12-year-old Scottish girl was charged with possessing weapons after online rumors swirled that she was fending off a migrant man. She was seen brandishing an axe and a large knife on video.The following week, both the accused immigrant and an alleged witness spoke out, providing conflicting accounts of the events in St Ann Lane, Dundee, Scotland. Now, police have laid subsequent charges.'They are thankful that everyone now knows the truth.'In a statement to Blaze News, Police Scotland said, "Following extensive enquiries, a man and a woman have been charged in connection with an incident in St Ann Lane in Dundee, which was reported around 7:40 p.m. on Saturday, 23 August, 2025."The statement added, "The circumstances will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal," otherwise known as Scotland's public prosecutor.Police Scotland also said the 12-year-old girl who was previously charged for "being in possession of offensive weapons" will be referred to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, a government body that decides whether a child needs legal intervention from the state."Members of the public are again urged not to share misinformation about this incident or speculate on the circumstances," the statement concluded.The new charges seemingly confirm allegations made in a witness testimony, as well as claims made online by a reporter who claims to have been in communication with the 12-year-old's family.RELATED: Scottish axe girl was defending beaten 13-year-old, witness claims — (@) Fatos Ali Dumana, the accused 21-year-old Bulgarian immigrant, had previously told the Daily Mail, "If I did hurt the girl, why didn't the police arrest me? They have done nothing to me." He added, "They saw from the CCTV cameras from Farmfoods that she was stopping me go on my way to the shop."Dumana also alleged that another bystander witnessed him being attacked and labeled a "f**king migrant.""I did not hit them. I am a human, not an animal," he added.At the same time, a TikTok user named Mayah, 13, said in a video testimony that she witnessed the incident personally. Mayah said she was with two sisters, Ruby, 13, and Lola, 12, the latter of whom was allegedly subjected to inappropriate remarks from a strange man.As the altercation escalated, the alleged witness claimed that the man's sister attacked Ruby, causing head injuries and sending her to the hospital with a concussion."She has a severe concussion and swelling inside of her head," Mayah said. It was at that point Lola allegedly brandished the weapons in an effort to protect her sister.Neither Dumana's nor Mayah's testimonies have benefited from any further proof from witnesses, CCTV, or evidence from police, but an independent reporter — who says he has spoken with the family — now says he has concrete evidence to go along with the newly laid charges.RELATED: Scottish police blame axe-wielding girl for altercation, reveal nationality of migrant A reporter going by the online moniker Aesthetica claims to have been in contact with Lola's family and even to have helped her mother, Elaine Thomson, start a fundraiser.Aesthetica told Blaze News exclusively that Police Scotland "confirmed to the family" that "Fatos Ali Dumana and his sister were the two people charged."Police Scotland said they had "nothing further to add" when asked by Blaze News for the names, ages, and/or nationalities of the two adults who were charged. They also neither confirmed nor denied if Dumana was the man who was charged.Blaze News also reached out to Dumana for comment about the alleged charges and the claims made by Aesthetica, but did not receive a reply. Image provided to Blaze News by 'Aesthetica' on XReporter Aesthetica provided an alleged hospital document to Blaze News, purported to be from Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland. The document is an attempt to prove that Ruby sought medical aid from injuries stemming from the altercation.The document is addressed to a person with the alleged last name of Ruby and Lola. It shows treatment was provided for a "diagnosis" of a "head injury — concussion."The photo also shows the examination was done to a "female, accompanied by mum," with a head injury again listed. The document said the patient attended the emergency room at 8:11 p.m. on August 23, 2025. This would be approximately 31 minutes following the incident described by police. The patient was discharged at 9:44 p.m."The hospital document was sent to Elaine Thomson, Lola and Ruby's mother, which was sent to [Mayah's mother], who sent it to me," Aesthetica explained to Blaze News.The family has declined to speak publicly, out of fear of public backlash and for their own safety, according to Aesthetica. However, the reporter told Blaze News that the family is "relieved that their names have finally been cleared."He added, "They are thankful that everyone now knows the truth and that they've been telling the truth the entire time."The fundraiser has garnered approximately $120,000 at the time of this writing.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On Tuesday, September 2, the House Oversight Committee released over 33K pages of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Once again, it seems that the majority of the information had already been released.Even the tiny bit of new information proved to be disappointing — most notably the infamous missing minute from Epstein’s prison cell surveillance footage on the night he supposedly committed suicide. The latest document dump provided the missing time, but it revealed nothing of consequence.“I love this administration, but they seem to be just bungling every single aspect of this particular issue in ways that I just can’t quite comprehend,” says Sara Gonzales, BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”“Everything about this stinks.” “Obviously people are saying, ‘This isn’t enough. We want the rest of the files, and more importantly, we don’t just want a file dump. We want something to be given to us in an organized manner that says who the hell was helping traffic children, who the hell was having sex with children, who knew about it, who was in on it,’” Sara says.“I want to know who was committing crimes against children, and I want them to suffer greatly from it. And I think that that’s what the majority of Americans want.”It appears to be what Epstein’s victims want as well. The day following the document dump, a group of nine alleged Epstein survivors held a press conference on Capitol Hill and threatened to compile their own list of names if the government fails to do so.“We know the names. Many of us were abused by them,” survivor Lisa Phillips said.“I want to understand this so badly because I believe in President Trump. I believe in the America First agenda,” Sara said.But she can’t ignore the discrepancy between his campaign promise to declassify the Epstein files — which everyone assumed would include the client list — and the administration’s refusal to release specific names.“Thus far, this administration, not President Trump himself, but the people who have been in charge” have done nothing but “[gaslight] the American public,” Sara says.She expresses frustration and confusion about how Attorney General Pam Bondi made a spectacle of passing out Epstein binders to conservative influencers, including Blaze Media’s Liz Wheeler, at the first Cabinet meeting to tease a big Epstein unveiling that never came.“It’s incomprehensible how badly this has been bungled,” Sara reiterates.She fears that as long as names are kept secret, President Trump risks fueling false accusations against him.During the press conference, one alleged victim said, “[Epstein] bragged about his powerful friends, including our current president, Donald Trump. It was his biggest brag, actually.”“That is what has gone viral. That is what you’re going to see on CNN. That is what you’re going to see on MSNBC,” Sara says.What we will almost certainly not see on mainstream news is the snippet from NBC’s exclusive interview with the victims where they all admitted they never once saw President Trump engaged in inappropriate behavior.“No one has been able to tie Donald Trump to anything related to any of the disgusting, despicable acts that Jeffrey Epstein did with children. ... But the problem is that if the government, if this administration, does not take charge of what is in whatever these files are and show it to the American people, you are going to have people like that woman” shaping a false narrative around President Trump, Sara says.“We need the truth, and we need it from this administration,” she adds.To hear more of her commentary, watch the episode above.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

You'll Own Nothing: Zohran Mamdani's Views on Housing Should Worry New Yorkers (and All of Us)

No Spanking In the Courtroom! Judge Cannon Denies Ryan Routh's Proposed Character Witness