The UK government has temporarily banned people from bringing cheese and some meats from the European Union (EU) into the country to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease.

But what does that actually mean in practice - and should you be concerned?

What has been banned?

Pork, beef, lamb, mutton, goat, venison and any other products made from these meats - such as sausages - from the EU have been banned. It also applies to pet food.

In addition, milk and dairy products - like butter, cheese and yoghurt - from the EU have also been prohibited.

It covers items such as sandwiches and cured meats as well as raw meats and milk "regardless of whether it is packed or packaged or whether it has been bought at duty free".

However, there are exceptions such as chicken, duck, goose and any other products made from these.

Who does the ban apply to?

The measure is only directed at people arriving in Great Britain - as in, England, Wales or Scotland - from the EU.

It does not apply to Northern Ireland, which has its own measures in place to contain foot and mouth disease.

The ban covers anyone travelling by any mode of transport - whether that's by plane, train, bus or by car.

But it will not be imposed on those arriving to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man.

Are commercially imported cheeses and meats banned too?

The ban only applies to travellers bringing in items personally - not commercial importers such as farmers or shops.

The reason, according to the UK government, is that commercial meat and cheese imports face higher standards than individuals are subjected to.

They must go through heat treatment, which is meant to kill germs, and come with health certificates signed by vets.

How can animals get foot and mouth disease from meat and dairy products?

The disease typically spreads between animals through direct contact. But they can also catch it by eating contaminated meat or dairy products.

Any products of animal origin, like meat and dairy, could be contaminated with foot and mouth disease.

Even if they are for human consumption, if they are thrown away in a way that could come into contact with foraging wildlife or domestic livestock, that presents a risk.

Should I be worried?

Foot and mouth disease is harmless to humans and there are no cases in the UK - but it is highly contagious for animals.

It affects cattle, sheep, pigs and, according to the government, "other cloven-hoofed animals such as wild boar, deer, llamas and alpacas".

Animals that catch it typically come down with a high temperature before developing blisters, usually around the mouth or feet. It can make animals lame and, for the very young, result in fatalities.

How long will the ban last?

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs introduced the measure on Saturday, 12 April and did not give an end date.

The BBC understands the ban will stay in place until the government believes there is no significant risk from travellers bringing banned meat and dairy into Great Britain.

Why didn't I know about this?

The government put out a release last Friday ahead of the ban coming into force on Saturday.

It told border control and airlines to make passengers aware of the rules and has rolled out a digital and social media campaign.

However, many people who have travelled from the EU to Great Britain since the weekend told the BBC they were unaware of the measure and were not told - with no signs in the airport and no checks carried out.

Anyone travelling should follow the rules.

The government says items could be seized and destroyed at the border and, in serious cases, offenders could be fined up to £5,000 in England.

A so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clause has been added to new plans for mandatory reporting of concerns around child sexual abuse.

The Crime and Policing Bill puts a new duty on teachers, GPs, and other professionals to report concerns or face criminal sanctions.

Mandatory reporting was one of the 20 recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) following the grooming gangs scandal.

However, an exclusion has been added for consensual sexual relationships between older teenagers, as long as there are no concerns around harm.

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet were fictional teenage lovers, whose forbidden romance ended in tragedy, but who have become synonymous with youthful love.

Labour's Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, who put forward the amendment during a committee hearing on the bill, said she wanted to provide "some discretion" in a limited number of situations " to avoid unintentional consequences".

Phillips said: "This avoids situations such as two kissing teenagers having to be reported to the authorities by a teacher who knows them both well...

"Nor do we want to discourage young people from accessing services that are designed to offer support in addressing their own harmful sexual behaviour."

The clause would not apply if either child was aged under 13 years old, if there was suspicion of coercion or abuse, or if there was a significant difference in age or maturity.

Responding in the debate, Conservative MP Harriet Cross backed the clause, which she said recognised that age differences were important in these relationships.

"For example, if a 14-year-old girl is sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, even if she says she has consented, a teacher or adult might rightly feel uneasy about the power dynamic and the possible impact of grooming," she said. "The adult might decide that it is appropriate to report in that case.

"On the other hand, two 14-year-olds would likely fall under the exemption."

Cross said it would allow professionals to use their judgement - but stressed the bar for not reporting should be high.

"It recognises that not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention," she said.

"Specifically, it lets professionals refrain from reporting consensual sexual activity between older teenagers when they believe there is no abuse or exploitation at play - it is basically a Romeo and Juliet exemption.

"...The exemption is not about condoning under-age sex, it is about proportionality."

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

The UK's largest teaching union will "make Labour MPs pay a high political price" if the government does not offer teachers in England a fully funded, above-inflation pay rise, its general secretary has said.

Daniel Kebede said members of the National Education Union (NEU) "expect better from a Labour government" than the pay recommendation ministers have made.

He said NEU members would campaign in Labour constituencies if it did not change - and "stand ready to strike".

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said "any move towards industrial action by teaching unions would be indefensible".

The government has recommended a 2.8% pay rise for teachers in England and expects most schools will need to make "efficiencies" to fund it.

The NEU agreed at its conference in Harrogate this week that it would hold a formal ballot on strike action if the offer remains "unacceptable", or if no extra funding is announced.

Phillipson has said: "With school staff, parents and young people working so hard to turn the tide on school attendance, any move towards industrial action by teaching unions would be indefensible.

"Following a 5.5% pay award in a hugely challenging fiscal context, I would urge NEU to put children first."

Responding to her comments, Mr Kebede told conference it was "indefensible for a Labour government – a Labour government – to cut school funding".

"After 14 years of Conservative austerity, we expect better from a Labour government," he said.

He said the final pay award must be above inflation and fully funded, representing a "correction" of teacher pay and helping to recruit and retain staff, otherwise "we stand ready to act industrially".

"We will make Labour MPs pay a high political price through our campaigning in their constituencies, with our parents, across this country," he said.

"No teacher wants to strike, but we stand ready."

Mr Kebede accused the government of a "betrayal" when it came to education funding.

Mr Kebede also commented on a row with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on Tuesday after the NEU branded Reform UK a "racist and far-right" party.

During the clash, Mr Kebede called Farage a "right-wing populist" but did not describe him as racist, while Mr Farage vowed to "go to war" with the teaching unions if it won the next general election.

On Thursday, Mr Kebede told NEU members that Farage "knows nothing about education".

"And whilst this government might be rolling out the red carpet for Nigel Farage to walk into No 10, through their austerity agenda, we won't stand for it," he said.

After years of argument and dispute about the meaning of gender, the watchword of Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling has to be clarity.

Equality law has been made clear with the unambiguous statement that the term "woman" refers to a biological woman and does not include biological men who have transitioned to being female.

It is a "victory for common sense", according to the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Baroness Falkner added: "If a male is allowed to use a women-only service, it isn't any longer a single-sex space."

This is a world away from the carefully chosen language which has been used to navigate gender issues for much of the last decade.

The Equality Act, which protects people who have been through gender reassignment from harassment, discrimination and sex discrimination, is enforced by the EHRC.

It is now updating its statutory code of conduct to take account of the judgment, saying that, with this new framework, it should be in a better position to enforce the law where it finds breaches.

It was directly involved in the Supreme Court case because it said inconsistencies over whether the term sex included or excluded transgender people with gender recognition certificates (GRC) was making equality law unworkable.

The ruling removes any ambiguity. Now, a GRC will not change a person's legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

What does the ruling mean in practice?

Public bodies - from the NHS and prisons to sports clubs and businesses - will already be reviewing their policies.

Women's toilets, changing rooms and other single sex spaces will be for biological women only.

In theory, that means a transgender man or woman should use facilities that correspond to their biological sex.

However, this is likely to present other difficulties as the person will be presenting as their gender identity to the outside world.

Baroness Falkner argues that transgender people should use "their power of advocacy" to persuade organisations to provide third spaces such as unisex toilets.

Cases such as that of the nurse, Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after refusing to share a changing room with a transgender doctor, are likely to be reviewed.

NHS Fife, the health board involved in the case, told the BBC that it noted the clarity provided by the ruling and would "carefully consider the judgment".

What it means for sport

Following the ruling, transwomen cannot compete in women's sport, the EHRC says.

Sport has been one of the most hotly contested areas in the debate about gender. In recent years, many sports have tightened rules around transgender athletics at elite levels.

Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women's events.

Other sports have put eligibility criteria in place. Earlier this month, the English Football Association introduced stricter rules - but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women's game on the condition that their testosterone was kept below a certain level.

However, it will take time to consider the implications on eligibility in elite sport, so there will not be any immediate change. Governing bodies are not compelled to amend or reconsider their rules - but if their rules now break equality law, they could face enforcement action.

For some there will be concerns about what the ruling means for transgender people.

The Supreme Court justices emphasised that transgender people already have protections against discrimination and harassment written into the Equality Act.

The EHRC will look to protect these rights, and Baroness Falkner said they "stand ready to support those people".

Trans rights campaigners have said they will be examining the judgment closely to decide their next steps - and it is possible they could attempt to put pressure on the government to change the Equality Act.

Campaigners have warned the UK Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman could have "dire consequences" for the safety of trans people.

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman told BBC Scotland News the trans community is now worried that "people are coming after their right to exist" as a result of the ruling.

And Kerrie Meyer, who had gender reassignment at the age of 72, criticised the ruling and said it would set back progress for trans people.

Judges unanimously ruled on Wednesday that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the decision would result in an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons, potentially affecting spaces such as hospital wards, changing rooms and domestic refuges.

The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.

But judges sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to those born female.

Kerrie Meyer, who lives in Shetland, argued that the ruling meant that: "At the stroke of pen, the security and well-being of all transgender people, whether now deemed as biological male and female, is in jeopardy.

"The Supreme Court's ruling has created severe implications for all trans people and has failed to take into account the dire consequences and untenable results that will occur."

Kerrie, who is now 77, moved to Shetland from Hastings in East Sussex in 2008 and was founder of the Shetland Islands Pride festival.

She said the rights of trans people had been advanced by the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, and that she believes the Supreme Court case was motivated by "reserving and maintaining" woman's spaces from trans women, regardless of whether they held a GRC

Kerrie told BBC Radio Scotland that it would be "totally and utterly ridiculous" for her to change her behaviour in public, adding: "I was born a man. Under the law I am a woman. I dress like a woman. I act like a woman. And I am a woman.

"If I go to the toilet and there is another woman in there, they don't know whether I have got a gender recognition certificate or not."

Kerrie also believes that recognition certificates should only be granted if someone has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Under the new ruling, a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have a right to use a space or service designated as women only, even if they have legally changed their gender.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said trans people should use their "power of advocacy" to ask for facilities including a "third space" for toilets.

She told the BBC's Today programme: "Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex. If a male person is allowed to use, it no longer is a single sex space."

She added the ruling was "a victory for common sense only if you recognise that trans people exist, they have rights and their rights must be respected".

Baroness Kishwer added public bodies like the NHS would be expected to update their advice, and that the EHRC would pursue any organisations which did not.

'Stoking the fires of culture war'

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman, a prominent supporter of trans rights, told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme the decision would "stoke the fires of the culture war" and trans people now feared they could lose access to facilities they've used, in some cases, for decades.

She said: "The response by For Women Scotland and other associated groups was very, very clear - they are taking this as a victory and that is potentially dangerous about where they go next.

"We've already heard people say they want to repeal the gender recognition act 2004, and trans people are worried that people are coming after their right to exist."

She added that trans people had been attacked in recent years "just for being who they are" and she was "concerned" about the impact of the Supreme Court decision.

However Rachel Hamilton, of the Scottish Conservatives, told Good Morning Scotland the court's decision was " basic common sense" and would being "clarity" to the trans debate.

She said: "The reason we ended up at the Supreme Court is because there was confusion in Scotland. Now we have a clear and unambiguous decision on what is a biological woman."

She said the Scottish government must set out a ministerial statement on how they would move forward with the Supreme Court ruling.

Ash Regan, the Alba party MSP who quit the SNP over the party's stance on gender, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament calling for "urgent action" to end self-identification in Scottish hospitals, public bodies, schools and prisons.

She claimed it was a "victory for women across the country" and that current gender self-identification laws jeopardised "the safety, privacy and dignity" of women and girls.

Regan told BBC Scotland News the verdict yesterday was a "humiliation" for the Scottish government.

She added: "The government has been making a mockery of Scotland by going to the Supreme Court to argue that men can be lesbians. They've got to take notice of this - this ideology has taken root across the public sector.

"The government could start [upholding women's rights] today by issuing very clear guidance for the whole of the public sector and they could send out a very strong signal by removing men from the women's prison estate."

An updated code of practice by the EHRC is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

The code helps service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice.

The Scottish government's finance minister Shona Robison previously told BBC News the administration would work with the EHRC and the UK government "at pace" on the guidance.

British Transport Police announced that while previously someone with a GRC could be searched by their acquired sex, officers have now been advised that same sex searches in custody would be undertaken by the person's biological birth sex.