EXPLOSIVE: Siddharth Sharma BLASTS makers of Soorya for non-payment of dues: “Producer told me, ‘Main toh pay nahin karunga. Tujhe jo karna hai, tu kar’; they are RUINING Sunny Deol sir’s name…they made me shoot an ad for Manyavar WITHOUT my consent, knowledge”

In a shocking development, actor Siddharth Sharma took to his Instagram handle to announce that he has dissociated himself from the Sunny Deol-starrer *Soorya*. In his post, he revealed that he has initiated legal proceedings against the makers of the film.

Bollywood Hungama exclusively spoke to Siddharth Sharma to understand what went wrong.

“This has happened for the first time in my career of 7-8 years. I have worked with T-Series for almost 5 years with Balaji, but I never faced something of this sort,” Siddharth began.

### Explosive Allegations: Non-Payment and Misuse of Image

Siddharth blasted the makers of *Soorya* for non-payment of dues. He shared an alarming quote from the producer:
> “Main toh pay nahin karunga. Tujhe jo karna hai, tu kar.”

He further added,
> “They are ruining Sunny Deol sir’s name. They made me shoot an ad for Manyavar without my consent or knowledge.”

### How the Project Came About

Siddharth explained, “When I was working on the reality show *Lock Upp*, the producers of *Soorya* approached Kangana Ranaut to reach out to me, as they wanted me to sign their film.”

He added that the makers obtained his contact details through Vinay Sapru and Radhika Rao, the directors of his biggest hit to date, “*Leja Re*,” which has over 1 billion views on T-Series’ YouTube channel. Both had previously worked with the film’s producer Kamal Mukut on *Sanam Teri Kasam* (2016), and the makers used their reference to contact Siddharth.

### Signing and Shooting the Film

“At first, I didn’t entertain their offers. But then, my brother called me inside the *Lock Upp* house and told me that the producers had signed Sunny Deol and were looking for a younger actor for an important role,” Siddharth shared. The film was pitched to him as a Sunny Deol-starrer.

By 2022, having already worked on Season 2 of *Punch Beat*, Siddharth signed an agreement with the producers and began shooting in Jaipur.

“The first schedule got over. It was not great, but overall fine. Our contract stated that I’d receive a signing amount plus 20% of my remaining fees after 50% of the shoot was complete,” he said.

### Delays and Payment Issues

However, the film got postponed, and despite the producers repeatedly asking for his dates, they kept canceling the shoot schedule. Siddharth noticed that the producers were facing financial difficulties at the time, so he did not press them too hard.

“But after the success of *Gadar 2* and the re-release of *Sanam Teri Kasam*, they had money. They also had the power, and I guess they felt it was okay to not adhere to my contract and not pay me,” Siddharth alleged.

He recalled,
> “They used to speak very sweetly, ‘Beta, shoot kar le. After 3 years, we are finally resuming the shoot. Sunny Deol has finally agreed to shoot.’ This is how they convinced me.”

### Contract Dispute and Refusal to Pay

Siddharth then asked for a fresh contract since the original was signed back in 2022. He also requested a raise, noting that Sunny Deol and other actors were getting fee hikes. The producers refused both requests.

“I said, ‘Fair enough. But please pay me my remaining dues.’ I had to cancel dates for another film I was committed to in order to shoot *Soorya*. I gave the film my everything,” he explained.

When Siddharth repeatedly asked for the payment, the producer kept saying, “Abhi paise nahin hai” or “we haven’t started clearing the payments.”

Eventually, Siddharth said the producer threatened him over the phone:
> “Main toh pay nahin karunga. Tujhe jo karna hai, tu kar le. Tu apne aap ko bada hero samajta hai. Toh ban le hero.”

He condemned this behavior, saying, “I was always talking to them humbly.”

### Refusal to Participate in Dubbing and Promotions

As per the contract, Siddharth is obligated to complete dubbing and promotions for the film. However, he stated,
> “I won’t be indulging in these activities until they pay me my rightful dues.”

He also accused the producers of cheating him in a theatrical ad shoot for Manyavar.

### Unauthorized Usage in Manyavar Advertisement

“They said it was a part of the film, a scene. But I had the bound script, and that scene wasn’t in it. They claimed, ‘We have added it later creatively,’” Siddharth explained.

He revealed that the Manyavar ad was shot without his consent or knowledge, which he considers cheating. It was only later that Manyavar informed him about a promotional exercise involving him because he had shot an ad for their brand.

Siddharth added,
> “The ad features me, Sunny Sir, and Virti Vaghani, who has previously worked in *Aarya* as Sushmita Sen’s daughter.”

### Legal Steps Taken

With no other option left, Siddharth sent a legal notice to the makers, but they did not respond. This prompted him to make the issue public on his Instagram handle.

### Despite the Troubles, Siddharth Appreciates the Film

Despite the ongoing issues, Siddharth praised the film:
> “The film is fantastic. The songs are very nice. They have changed the film quite a bit. It is no longer the same script that I signed for. But I am okay with it as it’s a creative call and if it benefits the film.”

He appealed to the producers, saying,
> “At least pay me my dues and stick to the legal agreement. Otherwise, what’s the point of doing an agreement?”

### Final Remarks

Siddharth expressed concern over the film’s makers misusing Sunny Deol’s name:
> “They are ruining the name of Sunny Deol sir. They pitch the film using his name, saying, ‘Woh hamare hero hai; hamare saath kaam kar rahe hai.’ They further claim that they have been in the business since the 1970s and have worked with stalwarts like Rishi Kapoor. So one expects to be in safe hands. But alas.”

Attempts to contact producer Kamal Mukut for comment were unsuccessful.

**Also Read:**
Sunny Deol announces new film *Ikka*, unveils first look motion poster.

**BOLLYWOOD NEWS LIVE UPDATES**
https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/explosive-siddharth-sharma-blasts-makers-soorya-non-payment-dues-producer-told-main-toh-pay-nahin-karunga-tujhe-jo-karna-hai-tu-kar-ruining-sunny-deol-sirs-name/

What is the lowest amount a debt collector will sue for?

In the current economic environment, where Americans owe a record $1.21 trillion in credit card debt and credit card rates are sitting at record highs, many borrowers face collection calls and potential lawsuits over unpaid debt. As more accounts fall into serious delinquency due to inflation and other economic stressors, even more people are at risk.

While debt-related lawsuits are among the most common civil cases in the U.S., they can still have long-lasting effects on your finances. Many people assume a debt lawsuit will only be filed if you owe a substantial balance. That’s not always the case. Debt collectors may file suits over surprisingly small amounts, depending on the type of debt, the agency involved, and state laws.

Understanding when legal action becomes likely and what you can do before it reaches that point is crucial—especially if your debt has already been turned over to collections. So, what is the lowest amount a debt collector is likely to file a lawsuit over? Let’s explore.

### What Is the Lowest Amount a Debt Collector Will Sue For?

There’s no single threshold amount that triggers a debt lawsuit. The decision to file usually depends on three main factors:

#### 1. The Size of the Debt Relative to Collection Costs
Debt collectors weigh potential recovery against the costs of suing you, including court filing fees, attorney costs, and the effort required to collect after winning. For small balances, filing a lawsuit and the related costs often aren’t worth it. However, many collection firms handle large volumes of cases through standardized processes, so pursuing even smaller balances can be profitable.

#### 2. The Type and Age of the Debt
Unsecured debts like credit cards and personal loans are more commonly litigated because they’re easier to prove and collect. Medical debts, on the other hand, are less likely to result in lawsuits, especially if sold to secondary collectors. Additionally, older debts beyond your state’s statute of limitations can’t legally be sued for, though collectors might still contact you or threaten legal action to try and compel payment.

#### 3. State Laws and Local Court Practices
In some states, small claims courts allow lawsuits for amounts as low as a few hundred dollars. For example, a debt collector might sue for a $750 credit card balance in a jurisdiction with minimal filing fees and high default judgment rates. Conversely, in states with higher court costs or stricter documentation rules, pursuing small debts may be less worthwhile.

In short: debt collectors typically start considering lawsuits for amounts around $1,000 to $5,000, but there’s no strict rule. If your debt falls within that range or you’ve ignored collection calls or letters, you could be at risk of being sued.

### How to Deal with Overwhelming Debt Before a Lawsuit Is Filed

If you’re behind on payments but haven’t been sued yet, you still have time to act. Taking early steps can help you avoid court, reduce your balance, and protect your credit. Here’s what to consider:

#### Communicate with Your Creditor or Debt Collector
Ignoring calls and letters won’t make the debt disappear; it increases your risk of a lawsuit. Instead, contact the creditor or debt collector to discuss your payment options. Some may accept reduced settlements or waive interest if you can provide a lump-sum payment.

#### Consider a Debt Management Program
Debt management programs, available through credit counseling agencies, allow you to consolidate multiple credit card debts into a single monthly payment while working to lower interest rates. A counselor negotiates with creditors on your behalf, and you pay the agency monthly until your balances are cleared—typically within three to five years.

#### Explore Debt Settlement
If you owe more than $7,500 to $10,000 and can’t keep up with payments, debt settlement could help you resolve your debt for less than you owe. A debt relief company negotiates with creditors to settle balances often for 50% to 70% of the total owed. Keep in mind, debt settlement can temporarily hurt your credit and may have tax implications.

#### Look into a Debt Consolidation Loan
If your credit is still solid, a debt consolidation loan might help combine multiple high-interest debts into one lower-rate loan. This option can make payments more manageable and reduce overall interest costs.

#### Consult with a Professional
If the situation feels overwhelming, speak with a credit counselor or debt relief specialist. They can assess your options based on your income, debt type, and credit profile and help decide whether settlement, management, or even bankruptcy is the best path forward.

### The Bottom Line

Debt collectors can—and often do—sue over relatively small amounts, especially if you’ve ignored repeated attempts to collect money owed. While lawsuits over a few hundred dollars aren’t common, balances in the $1,000 to $5,000 range are frequently targeted, depending on the creditor and your state’s rules.

If you’re at risk of being sued, acting quickly can help you avoid the stress and long-term damage of a judgment. Whether it involves negotiating directly with debt collectors, joining a debt management program, or exploring a debt relief solution, don’t wait to act. The earlier you respond, the more control you’ll have and the easier it will be to protect your finances before a lawsuit begins.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-lowest-amount-a-debt-collector-will-sue-for/

Prince Andrew’s Legal Nightmare: Disgraced Royal Could Still Face Trial as Epstein Accuser’s New Book Is Revealed — Scandal is ‘The Most Serious Crisis for the Monarchy’

**Prince Andrew’s Top Biographer Warns Former Duke of York Could Still Face Court Over Jeffrey Epstein Allegations**

*Published October 21, 2025, 8:01 p.m. ET*

In the wake of disgraced Prince Andrew relinquishing his royal titles, his leading biographer has claimed the former Duke of York could still be held accountable for claims made by another Jeffrey Epstein victim—claims that might lead him to court, RadarOnline.com reveals.

Andrew Lownie, author of *Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York*, made this sensational assertion just one day before Epstein victim and Andrew’s accuser, Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, *Nobody’s Girl*, was released on Tuesday, October 21.

**“Serious Crisis for the Monarchy”**

“I think this is probably the most serious crisis for the monarchy since the abdication, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Andrew is actually put on trial,” Lownie boldly stated on *The Telegraph’s* The Daily T podcast.

“There are going to be more damaging revelations. There will be more leaked emails. Another victim’s memoir is coming out next month.”

“Who knows what might emerge from Congress or if other victims will come forward,” he added.

Lownie alleged that in Giuffre’s case, Andrew “tried to avoid the summons by going up to Balmoral. He refused to cooperate with either the victim’s lawyers or law enforcement agencies, even with mutual treaty assistance being used to try and get him to come forward.”

“He and Sarah Ferguson are material witnesses. For the sake of the victims, I hope they will cooperate in the future because, as people who were in these houses, they would have seen a lot that could be very useful,” Lownie claimed.

Like Andrew, his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, 66, also relinquished her royal title and has been embroiled in the Epstein scandal.

**Andrew Settled Lawsuit Out of Court**

Andrew settled his civil sexual assault lawsuit with Giuffre out of court in February 2022.

**“Vigorous” Denial**

“I don’t think this can be any argument. Andrew has never responded to any of the allegations made to him,” Lownie commented regarding the prince and Giuffre’s claim that she was forced to have sex with the late Queen Elizabeth II’s son.

When host Camilla Tominey noted that Andrew “vehemently” denied Giuffre’s claims, Lownie responded, “He could have addressed the allegations rather than simply deny them.”

In Andrew’s announcement relinquishing his titles, he again stated, “As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”

Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with the disgraced prince when she was underage, detailing the encounters in her memoir.

**A “Distraction” to King Charles III’s Reign**

Andrew initially stepped back from royal duties after Epstein’s 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. The financier died that same year in prison while awaiting trial.

The prince was later stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the queen in 2022.

On October 17, Andrew announced that after “a discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.”

Lownie criticized the prince’s response, saying, “This matter should have been dealt with a long time ago. If he were the honorable man who put his country and the monarchy first, it would have been dealt with. He would have left Royal Lodge.”

The author added, “I don’t feel the palace has dealt with this very well in terms of damage limitation. It’s too little, too late.”
https://radaronline.com/p/prince-andrew-should-face-trial-biographer-claims-epstein-scandal/

Comey hired possible witness as his lawyer to block testimony, DOJ says

The government has asked the court to approve a “filter protocol” to allow a neutral team to review seized communications between James Comey and several lawyers, including Michael Fitzgerald, to determine whether the material is privileged or evidence of misconduct.

“Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information,” prosecutors wrote.

### A Case Rooted in 2017 Memo Leaks

Comey, 64, was indicted on September 25 for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. He pleaded not guilty earlier this month, insisting he never authorized leaks to the press and accusing the Justice Department of mounting a vindictive prosecution encouraged by former President Trump.

According to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from August 2019, Comey leaked copies of his personal memos—documenting conversations he had with Trump—to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Michael Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. He later tapped all three as his personal lawyers. These memos contained detailed accounts of Oval Office meetings and one-on-one calls in which Trump allegedly urged leniency for then-national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Prosecutors now argue that Comey is repeating the pattern that started with that arrangement. Because Fitzgerald is now representing Comey in the criminal case stemming in part from those very disclosures, the government says Fitzgerald’s presence on the defense team “raises a question of conflict and disqualification.”

### Classified Information and the Breach

The FBI later concluded that some of the memos shared with the trio contained information classified at the “confidential” level and moved to delete them from the attorneys’ computers in early 2018, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.

“Before litigating any issue of conflict or disqualification, the parties should have access to all relevant and non-privileged information,” prosecutors wrote in their Sunday night filing. “The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court.”

### OIG Found Comey ‘Set a Dangerous Example’

Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report described Comey’s actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he “set a dangerous example” for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for “a personally desired outcome.” The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so.

Although the Horowitz report found no evidence that Comey or his lawyers shared classified information with the media, it concluded that his handling of official records violated FBI policy and DOJ regulations. Prosecutors at the time declined to bring charges, citing a lack of proof that Comey intentionally mishandled classified material.

One of the leaked memos described Comey’s February 2017 Oval Office meeting with Trump, in which the president allegedly said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go.” The contents of that memo, leaked through Richman to The New York Times, helped trigger the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Prosecutors have since charged Comey with lying to Congress about leaking, although the details of the DOJ’s case remain unclear.

### How the Leaks Were Shared

The inspector general reported that Comey emailed four memos from a personal account to Fitzgerald within days of his May 2017 firing. Fitzgerald then forwarded the messages to Kelley and Richman, both of whom were advising Comey at the time. Separately, Comey sent Richman a photograph of the Flynn memo from his cellphone.

Copies of the memos later released to Congress showed that four were classified as either “secret” or “confidential” following an FBI review led by counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap. Comey disputed the secret designation for one of them, though investigators found he never sought classification guidance from the bureau before sharing the material.

In a 2019 FBI interview, Richman said Comey had not authorized him to discuss the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation with reporters but acknowledged Comey knew he sometimes engaged with the press.

### First Pretrial Standoff Comes to the Forefront

Comey’s same 2017 relationships with close confidants are now at the heart of the government’s latest inquiry into whether Comey can keep his current lead counsel. Fitzgerald’s own involvement in transmitting Comey’s memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client.

### Jack Smith’s Former Right-Hand Man Joins Comey’s Defense Team

The government’s disqualification effort comes on the heels of Comey’s move last Friday to hire an additional attorney, Mueller counselor Michael Dreeben, who also assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his case against Trump last year over alleged election interference.

Dreeben’s involvement could present another unique conflict, though the government has yet to raise a specific issue with him being on the case.

Comey’s team has also accused the DOJ of mishandling privileged materials and is preparing to argue that the prosecution itself was politically motivated in additional filings expected Monday afternoon.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3857132/comey-hired-possible-witness-as-lawyer-patrick-fitzgerald-doj-says/

Kansas SNAP funding accusations examined

**Kansas SNAP Funding Controversy: Attorney General Kris Kobach’s Claims Debunked by Gov. Laura Kelly’s Administration**

Kansas SNAP funding was reportedly at risk of losing $10.4 million, according to claims made by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in a lawsuit filed against Governor Laura Kelly’s administration on September 8. However, these assertions were officially refuted by the Kelly administration on September 30 through a series of press releases, which addressed the most significant claim regarding the potential loss of funding for families depending on the SNAP program.

The Kelly administration stated, “After the USDA rejected the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) Corrective Action Proposal, DCF filed an appeal with the USDA. The filing of that appeal immediately prevented the USDA from withholding the $10.4 million. The State of Kansas has not lost any SNAP administrative funding, and the program continues to operate as usual.”

Moreover, the administration revealed that Kobach made these allegations without conducting prior research or consulting with the Governor’s office. These unsubstantiated claims caused unwarranted panic among Kansas SNAP recipients and raised questions about the continued availability of their benefits. Gov. Kelly was quickly and repeatedly blamed despite no substantial evidence supporting Kobach’s accusations.

In response, Governor Kelly remarked, “Had the Attorney General met with my office prior to filing his lawsuit, as my office had requested, we could have explained the issue without having to go through the time and expense of the court.”

The Kelly administration also clarified that its decision to withhold certain SNAP recipients’ information went beyond Kobach’s claim that Gov. Kelly was “making a show of resistance to the Trump administration,” a statement never issued by anyone in Kelly’s office. Both DCF Secretary Laura Howard and Governor Kelly have expressed distrust of President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to share more detailed information about SNAP recipients to prevent fraud.

Secretary Howard explained in an interview with the *Kansas Reflector*, “The release of information isn’t about detecting fraud because those procedures are already in place.” Since effective fraud detection measures were established, Governor Kelly concluded that complying with the federal request to provide additional personal information could potentially violate recipients’ privacy.

Despite this, Kobach characterized the refusal as a “political demonstration,” without providing impartial evidence to support his claim.

Concerns about the Trump administration’s intentions were echoed by multiple parties. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney of California ruled against the federal agency’s effort to enforce this new policy after states raised worries that revealing such data could compromise sensitive applicant information—including income, family details, and immigration status—potentially facilitating mass deportations.

Although the Kelly administration did not participate in this lawsuit, its reasoning aligned with that of 21 states involved in the legal challenge.

Governor Kelly addressed the situation on social media, criticizing the “attacks” against her as “childish” and “idiotic.” She stated on X:

> “As public officials, we should be bigger than that and better than that. Kansans face serious challenges; many are just trying to make ends meet, and they expect us to be focused on their problems, not wasting time on idiotic memes. I’d like to invite the Republican officials who I know also disdain these types of silly attacks to join me in trying to restore a basic sense of civility to our politics.”

At the time of publication, Governor Laura Kelly could not be reached for further comment.
https://kstatecollegian.com/2025/10/16/kansas-snap-funding-accusations-examined/

拘束された間「人間扱いされず」 ガザ支援船団の邦人女性

国際 拘束された間「人間扱いされず」 ガザ支援船団の邦人女性

2025/10/12 15:46 (2025/10/12 15:48 更新) [有料会員限定記事]

西日本新聞meとは?

【イスタンブール共同】パレスチナ自治区ガザに船団で支援物資を届けようとしてイスラエル軍に拘束されたオランダ在住の会社員、安村美香子さん(62)=大津市出身=が12日までに電話取材に応じました。

安村さんは、10月1日に拘束されていた期間中、「人間扱いされなかった」と語っています。

詳細な内容や経緯については、この記事は有料会員限定となっております。残り557文字の全文をお読みいただくには、7日間無料トライアルおよび1日37円での読み放題、または年払いプランをご利用ください。

クリップ機能は有料会員の方のみご利用いただけます。

記事の共有はthreads、Facebook、Twitterから可能です。

https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1410474/

米・ベネズエラの対立議論 安保理、マドゥロ政権賛否

国際|米・ベネズエラの対立議論
安保理、マドゥロ政権賛否
2025年10月11日 7:49 更新:7:51

【ニューヨーク共同】
国連安全保障理事会は10日、トランプ米政権による「麻薬運搬船」攻撃を巡る米国とベネズエラの対立を協議する緊急会合を開いた。

開催を要請したベネズエラ代表は攻撃について「マドゥロ政権…」と主張したが、詳細は現在調査中であり、議論は続いている。

(この記事は有料会員限定です。残り261文字)

7日間無料トライアルあり。1日37円で読み放題。年払いならもっとお得です。
https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1410213/

東京メトロ前社長、取締役を辞任 内部通報、社員へ不適切な言動

経済|東京メトロ前社長、取締役を辞任 内部通報で社員へ不適切な言動

2025年10月10日 17:46 更新:17:48

東京メトロは10日、社員に対して不適切な言動があったとして、前社長の山村明義取締役が辞任したと発表しました。

今年8月に社内の内部通報窓口に通報があり、その後、外部弁護士による調査が行われました。その結果、山村氏による不適切な言動が事実であると認定されました。

この件は指名・報酬委員会でも審議され、辞任に至ったとのことです。

※この記事は有料会員限定となっております。

https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1409927/

外国人に起業で在留資格、厳格化 「経営・管理」16日改正

外国人の起業で在留資格「経営・管理」を厳格化、改正省令を公布

出入国在留管理庁は10日、日本で起業などを行う外国人向けの在留資格「経営・管理」の取得要件を厳格化する改正省令を公布しました。施行日は10月16日となっています。

今回の改正では、必要な資本金の基準が従来の500万円以上から3,000万円以上に引き上げられます。これにより、外国人が日本で事業を開始・運営する際の要件が大幅に強化される見込みです。

詳細は有料会員向けの記事でご覧いただけます。

https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1409761/

フランス死刑廃止立役者、殿堂に バダンテールさん、24年に死去


title: 国際|フランス死刑廃止立役者、殿堂に バダンテールさん、24年に死去
date: 2025-10-10 06:49
updated: 2025-10-10 06:51

フランスの死刑廃止に大きく貢献したバダンテールさんが、2024年に亡くなりました。彼の功績を称え、殿堂入りが決まりました。

バダンテールさんは長年にわたり死刑制度の廃止運動を推進し、多くの支持を集めてきました。彼の活動は国内外で高く評価され、死刑廃止の流れを築く立役者となりました。

この記事は有料会員限定コンテンツとなっております。詳細記事の閲覧には、7日間無料トライアルまたは会員登録が必要です。

■有料会員サービスのご案内
– 7日間無料トライアルあり
– トライアル中は1日あたり37円で読み放題
– 年払いプランでさらにお得にご利用いただけます

詳しくは「西日本新聞me」のサービスページをご覧ください。
https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1409668/