British psychic Sally Morgan has unveiled a new spiritual forecast, predicting that Kim Kardashian will pass the bar exam and become a qualified lawyer by March 2026.

This prediction comes just after a week after the reality TV star and aspiring attorney publicly denounced the psychics she had consulted in the past, calling them “psychological liars” for falsely giving her hope that she would pass the bar on her first attempt.

The 45-year-old confirmed her failure on the exam last Friday, despite holding a degree in a four-year Law Office Study Program (LOSP).

In foul-mouthed tirade, she expressed her fury at the mediums who gave her false hope.

“I’m just letting you guys know that all of the f***** psychics we have met with, and that we’re obsessed with, are all f****** full of s***,” she said.

“They all collectively, maybe four of them, told me I was gonna pass the bar, so they’re all full pathological liars. Don’t believe anything they say,” she added.

Undeterred by the criticism, Psychic Sally, 74, has now offered her own detailed vision for Kardashian’s bar exam future.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, Morgan asserted, “She very, very nearly passed.”

The medium speculated that a “slight mistake” on the third section of the five-part exam led her to the failure and suggested an investigation is already underway.

Standing firm on her new timeline, she insisted, “I think by March 2026 she will have passed them.”

Despite her recent failure, Kardashian has vowed to continue her six-year law journey. “Falling short isn’t failure, it’s fuel,” she told her followers.

“I was so close to passing the exam and that only motivates me even more,” she added.

The star is determined to carry the legacy of her late father, Robert Kardashian, a renowned attorney. She is also currently playing a divorce lawyer in her new television drama, All’s Fair. 

• President signs bills on PM Shehbaz’s advice.
• All three bills passed by parliament this week.
• COAS will concurrently serve as CDF.

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday signed the Pakistan Army, Air Force and Navy Amendment Bills 2025 into law following their approval by parliament.

According to notifications shared by the PPP on the social media platform X, the president gave his assent to the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill 2025, the Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Bill 2025 and the Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Bill 2025.

The bills, presented by Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar and Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, were passed by both the lower and upper houses of parliament — the National Assembly and the Senate — this week.

What are the key changes?

Under the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill, the COAS will concurrently serve as Chief of the Defence Forces for five years. Field Marshal Munir’s tenure will restart from the date the new notification is issued.

Article 243 provisions applicable to a Field Marshal will also apply to a General promoted to the rank. The federal government may authorise the Vice Chief of Army Staff or Deputy Chief of Army Staff to exercise powers of the COAS, under written orders issued on the CDF’s recommendation.

The legislation further clarifies that once the first notification for the dual office is issued, the incumbent COAS’ tenure will be deemed to have recommenced from the date of that notification.

The federal government will determine the duties and responsibilities of the CDF, including multi-domain integration, restructuring and ensuring jointness across the armed forces.

A major structural change approved in the bill is the abolition of the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), to be replaced by the Commander of the National Strategic Command. The prime minister may appoint the commander from among serving Pakistan Army generals for a three-year term, on the COAS/CDF’s recommendation.

The terms and conditions of the appointment will be set by the prime minister, who may also grant a three-year extension in the national security interest. The bill states that any appointment, reappointment or extension for the Commander shall not be challenged before any court.

The Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Bill, 2025, removes sections 10D, 10E and 10F of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, which previously dealt with the appointment of the PAF chief as CJCSC, his tenure, extension and retirement. 

All references to the CJCSC have been omitted across the Act. Similarly, the Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Bill, 2025, deletes sections 14D, 14E and 14F concerning the appointment and tenure of the Naval Chief as CJCSC, also removing the term from other provisions of the law.

U.S. President Donald Trump vows to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for “anywhere between $1bn and $5bn” over a misleading edited clip in a Panorama documentary faces a steep uphill battle in court, with legal analysts pointing to a series of formidable jurisdiction and legal obstacles.

“We have to do it, they’ve even admitted that they cheated, Not that they couldn’t have done that. They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth,” President Trump told reporters on board Air Force One.

BBC have also issued a formal apology last week for an edit in October 2024 documentary which spliced two parts of President’s January 6, 2021, speech.

With the edited version, there was a “mistaken impression” that he directly called for a violent action.

While the apology prompted the resignation of the corporation’s top two executives, the news agency has refused to pay financial compensation and has cited that it “strongly disagreed there is a basis for defamation claim” as reported by Sky News.

Despite BBC’s contrition , legal experts suggest a successful lawsuit is a long shot.

Legal hurdles in the UK

The most straightforward path to file a defamation case would be in the United Kingdom, since the program was originally broadcast here. But, this avenue appears to be closed.

The one-year limitation period for a defamation claim in the UK has almost certainly expired, as the program aired in October 2024. But even if it hadn’t, President Trump would face a difficult task proving serious harm to his reputation, a key requirement under UK law.

It is anticipated that BBC’s defense would be that the edit was an error in judgment, not malice, and that Trump was re-elected as president shortly after the documentary was aired, and didn’t suffer tangible reputational damage in the UK as a result.

Legal hurdles in U.S.

The other way is to bring the case to a U.S. court, potentially in Trump’s home state of Florida, which introduces a different set of challenges, majorly concerning jurisdiction and the high bar for public figures to prove defamation.

The major problem Trump will face is that the BBC’s Panorama program was not broadcasted on any American television and was geographically restricted on the BBC’s iPlayer platform.

To sue in Florida, Trump’s legal team would have to convince the court the BBC purposefully directed its content at a Florida audience, which seems a difficult argument to make.

If a court accepts a jurisdiction, the U.S. President would then have to meet the “actual malice” standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Since BBC has already stated that the edit was “unintentional” in its formal apology writing in retraction, “We accept that our edit unintentionally created this impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and this this gave the mistake impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”

This statement directly contradicts the “actual malice” standard.

A political quagmire for UK Prime Minister

The situation also created a diplomatic and political dilemma for UK Prime minister Keir Starmer.

Trump told reporters that he plans to have a telephonic conversation with Starmer over the weekend.

Since BBC is a public corporation, funded by a license fee and legally independent of government, Starmer intervenes to dissuade Trump from the lawsuit, can accused him of compromising the BBC’s editorial independence.

If he remains silent, he leaves a cherished British institution facing a potentially costly and protracted legal battle with a sitting U.S. president, a fight that could ultimately be funded by British taxpayers.

In a separate interview on Saturday, November 15, recorded before his comments on Air Force One, Trump declared the lawsuit an “obligation,” adding, “If you don’t do it, you don’t stop it from happening again with other people.

However, the legal path to a multi-billion dollar payout appears with complications that may make the threat of a lawsuit more potent than its eventual filing.