In a dramatic overnight operation, India said it launched missile and air strikes on nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting what it called militant positions based on "credible intelligence".

The strikes, lasting just 25 minutes between 01:05 and 01:30 India time (19:35 and 20:00 GMT on Tuesday), sent shockwaves through the region, with residents jolted awake by thunderous explosions.

Pakistan said only six locations were hit and claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone - a claim India has not confirmed.

Islamabad said 26 people were killed and 46 injured in Indian air strikes and shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) - the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, India's army reported that 10 civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border.

This sharp escalation comes after last month's deadly militant attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, pushing tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals to dangerous new heights. India says it has clear evidence linking Pakistan-based terrorists and external actors to the attack - a claim Pakistan flatly denies. Islamabad has also pointed out that India has not offered any evidence to support its claim.

Does this attack mark a new escalation?

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched "surgical strikes" across the LoC.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot - the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 - sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Experts say the retaliation for the Pahalgam attack stands out for its broader scope, targeting the infrastructure of three major Pakistan-based militant groups simultaneously.

India says it struck nine militant targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, hitting deep into key hubs of Lashkar-e- Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen.

Among the closest targets were two camps in Sialkot, just 6-18km from the border, according to an Indian spokesperson.

The deepest hit, says India, was a Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur, 100km inside Pakistan. A LeT camp in Muzaffarabad, 30km from the LoC and capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, was linked to recent attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir, the spokesperson said.

Pakistan says six locations have been hit, but denies allegations of there being terror camps.

"What's striking this time is the expansion of India's targets beyond past patterns. Previously, strikes like Balakot focused on Pakistan-administered Kashmir across the Line of Control - a militarised boundary," Srinath Raghavan, a Delhi-based historian, told the BBC.

"This time, India has hit into Pakistan's Punjab, across the International Border, targeting terrorist infrastructure, headquarters, and known locations in Bahawalpur and Muridke linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. They've also struck Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen assets. This suggests a broader, more geographically expansive response, signalling that multiple groups are now in India's crosshairs - and sending a wider message," he says.

The India-Pakistan International Border is the officially recognised boundary separating the two countries, stretching from Gujarat to Jammu.

Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, told the BBC that what India did was a "Balakot plus response meant to establish deterrence, targeting known terrorist hubs, but accompanied by a strong de-escalatory message".

"These strikes were more precise, targeted and more visible than in the past. Therefore, [they are] less deniable by Pakistan," Mr Bisaria says.

Indian sources say the strikes were aimed at "re-establishing deterrence".

"The Indian government thinks that the deterrence established in 2019 has worn thin and needs to be re-established," says Prof Raghavan.

"This seems to mirror Israel's doctrine that deterrence requires periodic, repeated strikes. But if we assume that hitting back alone will deter terrorism, we risk giving Pakistan every incentive to retaliate - and that can quickly spiral out of control."

Could this spiral into a broader conflict?

The majority of experts agree that a retaliation from Pakistan is inevitable - and diplomacy will come into play.

"Pakistan's response is sure to come. The challenge would be to manage the next level of escalation. This is where crisis diplomacy will matter," says Mr Bisaria.

"Pakistan will be getting advice to exercise restraint. But the key will be the diplomacy after the Pakistani response to ensure that both countries don't rapidly climb the ladder of escalation."

• India and Pakistan are in crisis again - here's how they de-escalated in the past

Pakistan-based experts like Ejaz Hussain, a Lahore-based political and military analyst, say Indian surgical strikes targeting locations such as Muridke and Bahawalpur were "largely anticipated given the prevailing tensions".

Dr Hussain believes retaliatory strikes are likely.

"Given the Pakistani military's media rhetoric and stated resolve to settle the scores, retaliatory action, possibly in the form of surgical strikes across the border, appears likely in the coming days," he told the BBC.

But Dr Hussain worries that surgical strikes on both sides could "escalate into a limited conventional war".

Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US believes given the scale of India's strikes, "visible damage at key sites", and reported casualties, Pakistan is highly likely to retaliate.

"Doing otherwise essentially would give India permission to strike Pakistan whenever Delhi feels aggrieved and would run contrary to the Pakistan military's commitment to retaliating with 'quid pro quo plus'," Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

"Given India's stated targets of groups and facilities associated with terrorism and militancy in India, I think it is likely - but far from certain - that Pakistan will confine itself to attacks on Indian military targets," he said.

Despite the rising tensions, some experts still hold out hope for de-escalation.

"There is a decent chance we escape this crisis with just one round of reciprocal standoff strikes and a period of heightened firing along the Line of Control," says Mr Clary.

However, the risk of further escalation remains high, making this the "most dangerous" India-Pakistan crisis since 2002 - and even more perilous than the 2016 and 2019 standoffs, he adds.

Is Pakistani retaliation now inevitable?

Experts in Pakistan note that despite a lack of war hysteria leading up to India's strike, the situation could quickly shift.

"We have a deeply fractured political society, with the country's most popular leader behind bars. Imran Khan's imprisonment triggered a strong anti-military public backlash," says Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst and a former correspondent of Jane's Defence Weekly.

"Today, the Pakistani public is far less eager to support the military compared to 2016 or 2019 - the usual wave of war hysteria is noticeably absent. But if public opinion shifts in central Punjab where anti-India feelings are more prevalent, we could see increased civilian pressure on the military to take action. And the military will regain popularity because of this conflict."

Dr Hussain echoes a similar sentiment.

"I believe the current standoff with India presents an opportunity for the Pakistani military to regain public support, particularly from the urban middle classes who have recently criticised it for perceived political interference," he says.

"The military's active defence posture is already being amplified through mainstream and social media, with some outlets claiming that six or seven Indian jets were shot down.

"Although these claims warrant independent verification, they serve to bolster the military's image among segments of the public that conventionally rally around national defence narratives in times of external threat."

Can India and Pakistan step back from the brink?

India is once again walking a fine line between escalation and restraint.

Shortly after the attack in Pahalgam, India swiftly retaliated by closing the main border crossing, suspending a water-sharing treaty, expelling diplomats and halting most visas for Pakistani nationals. Troops on both sides have exchanged small-arms fire, and India barred all Pakistani aircraft from its airspace, mirroring Pakistan's earlier move. In response, Pakistan suspended a 1972 peace treaty and took its own retaliatory measures.

This mirrors India's actions after the 2019 Pulwama attack, when it swiftly revoked Pakistan's most-favoured-nation status, imposed heavy tariffs and suspended key trade and transport links.

The crisis had escalated when India launched air strikes on Balakot, followed by retaliatory Pakistani air raids and the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, further heightening tensions. However, diplomatic channels eventually led to a de-escalation, with Pakistan releasing the pilot in a goodwill gesture.

"India was willing to give old-fashioned diplomacy another chance.... This, with India having achieved a strategic and military objective and Pakistan having claimed a notion of victory for its domestic audience," Mr Bisaria told me last week.

A final shortlist of five proposed designs for the national memorial to Queen Elizabeth II has been revealed by the government.

The memorial, commemorating the life of Britain's longest-reigning monarch who died in September 2022, will be built in St James's Park in central London.

Illustrations of the design concepts are being put online by the Cabinet Office and the public will be invited to have their say about the ideas for the major new monument.

Three of the five proposed designs feature the late Queen riding a horse, reflecting her lifelong enthusiasm for equestrianism.

There are other features proposed by the competing teams of artists and architects, such as incorporating recordings of the late Queen's voice into a memorial, and large sculptures of lilies around a figure of the late Queen.

One of the proposed designs uses an oak tree to represent Queen Elizabeth's strength and resilience. Another suggests building symbolic pathways and a pair of bridges over the lake in the park.

The winning entry will be chosen later this year, but there is no date yet set for when the finished memorial will be unveiled. The construction budget will be between £23m and £46m, depending on the selected design, says the Cabinet Office.

The public will get a chance to say whether they want a more traditional representation of the late Queen, or something more experimental, in what will become an important London landmark.

The new memorial will be placed not too far from statues of the late Queen's parents, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Also nearby is the memorial to Queen Victoria outside Buckingham Palace.

The location for the monument will be a section of St James's Park close to the Mall and across to a bridge over a lake in the park. The entries include plans to landscape and redesign this area and the construction process is expected to mean replacing the current bridge.

The memorial scheme will also provide community projects and facilities around the country.

This will follow in the tradition of legacy schemes such as the King George V Playing Fields, which saw almost 500 sports grounds opened in memory of the monarch who died in 1936.

Many of those playing fields are still in use, dotted around the country.

The public is being encouraged to contribute ideas about the memorial and to give feedback on the shortlisted designs.

"We want public engagement, we want the public to comment on these proposals, because we want them to feel part of it," said Baroness Amos, a member of the committee which will select the design to be built.

"So much of what the late Queen was about was meeting people and engaging with them," she said.

Baroness Amos, a former leader of the House of Lords, said the memorial should be a fitting tribute to the late Queen, who died at the age of 96 after seven decades on the throne.

"This is about an extraordinary woman and an extraordinary reign, about her commitment to public service, her duty, her commitment to the community, to the nation and the Commonwealth," she said.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Russia is expected to begin a self-declared three-day pause in fighting against Ukraine on Wednesday night, in a move derided by many Ukrainians and described by President Volodymyr Zelensky as little more than a "theatrical show".

Russia's Vladimir Putin proposed the three-day ceasefire to coincide with the anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe – a public holiday in Russia on Friday known as Victory Day.

But in doing so Putin has rejected a much more substantial proposal from the Trump administration for a 30-day ceasefire and negotiations – a proposal that was accepted by Ukraine.

Zelensky has in turn rejected Russia's unilateral three-day ceasefire and said that Ukraine will not guarantee the safety of a celebratory military parade in Moscow's Red Square on 9 May.

Rosenberg: Russians remember WW2 with victory on their minds

The Russian proposal has been met with widespread cynicism in Ukraine, where polls consistently suggest that about 95% of the population distrusts Russia.

"I don't believe there will be any ceasefire," said Tetyana Kondratenko, 42, a shopkeeper in Khotin Village in Sumy, a heavily bombarded region about six miles (10km) from the Russian border.

"Lately the shelling has only intensified, for half the day today we have heard boom after boom," Ms Kondratenko said in a phone interview.

Zelensky was right to reject the proposal "because you know how they operate, like what happened at Easter", she added, referring to the Russians.

"They announced a ceasefire, then used it to bring in more equipment and started attacking again. What kind of ceasefire is that?"

Last month, around Easter, Russia proposed a similar 30-hour cessation in hostilities but was later accused by Ukraine of violating its own suggested truce nearly 3,000 times.

On that occasion, rather than rejecting the proposal outright, Ukraine said it would mirror Russia's actions.

A senior Ukrainian military officer told the BBC at the time that frontline units received an order to stop firing at Russian positions, but to record evidence of Russian violations and return fire if needed.

By Wednesday Ukrainian officials had not said categorically whether they would adjust their military action over the three-day period. Asked if Ukrainian forces planned to continue military operations, a source in the presidential office told the BBC: "We'll see."

From Novosofiivka village, in the very badly hit region of Zaporizhzhia, Antonina Sienina, 35, said that any ceasefire worth agreeing to should come with "solid guarantees" for Ukraine's safety and sovereignty – not something included in Putin's plan for the next three days.

• How Russia took record losses in Ukraine in 2024
• Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia

But Ms Sienina had mixed feelings. Her parents were killed in a Russian strike, her brother has been wounded, and her village has been pounded, so "maybe it wasn't right to refuse" the three-day proposal, she added.

"Because honestly, we would be happy even for just one day without explosions. Just to take the kids somewhere, to a shopping mall, to a playground, to some attractions," she said.

"We dream of the war being over, or at least a temporary ceasefire, because my children are exhausted. The nerves, the medications, the sleepless nights. It's too much."

Residents of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv were kept awake in the early hours of Wednesday morning by Russian drone and missile strikes on the city. A ballistic missile was successfully shot down by air defence systems but a drone hit a block of flats, killing a mother and her son and injuring at least six more, including a child.

The mayor of Moscow said on Wednesday that Russian air defences had downed 14 Ukrainian drones overnight. The Kremlin said that the drone attacks had no bearing on its plans to pause fighting for three days.

The pause is not being taken seriously in Ukraine, for the most part. It has been greeted instead as more of a propaganda exercise. Pavlo Klimkin, the former foreign minister of Ukraine, told the BBC it was simply another Russian show of force.

"This is all about Russia framing the agenda on its own terms," Klimkin said. "It has nothing to do with a real ceasefire. It is all about messaging – messaging internally, messaging to the US, messaging to Europe to say that we, Russia, are in control."

Talks directed at a substantial ceasefire process began back in February, with US President Donald Trump sending officials to negotiate separately with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has since agreed to a US proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, Russia has not.

The months since have been a deadly period in the war. Russia has intensively targeted Ukrainian cities with drones and missiles, killing 19 people including nine children last month in a strike on a playground in Kryvyi Rih and 35 people a week later in an Easter strike on the city of Sumy.

According to the UN, at least 848 civilians were killed between 1 and 24 April - a 46% increase on the same period last year.

The level of civilian deaths meant that any ceasefire should be accepted, even on Russian terms, said Oleksii Kamchatnyi, 38, a scientist living in Kyiv.

"It is about saving lives," Mr Kamchatnyi said. "I'm originally from Donbas, from Pokrovsk. I managed to evacuate my mother but my father stayed there. I haven't had any contact with him since 9 March."

Still, Mr Kamchatnyi supported the temporary ceasefire, he said, "even if it means giving up territory."

Ukrainian polling suggests that a majority of the public would accept the idea of ceding some control of territory seized by the Russians during the full-scale invasion, though not surrendering formal sovereignty over the land, according to Anton Grushetsky, director of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

"There is for certainly a lot of fatigue and there is a lot of desire to have a stable peace in Ukraine," Mr Grushetsky said.

But based on previous polling, the majority of Ukrainians would likely view the proposed three-day ceasefire as "either a trap or simply a ploy to avoid attacks on Moscow during the holiday", he added.

There is also suspicion among many in Ukraine that the ceasefire proposal is simply a ploy by Russia to move its forces to strategic places on the battlefield, make reinforcements where needed, and prepare for offensives.

Ukraine had already made clear that it was ready for a full, unconditional ceasefire, and had no obligation to take part in Russia's agenda, said Mykhailo Samus, a Ukrainian military analyst and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network.

"Why would we play Putin's game? We are ready for a real ceasefire," Mr Samus said. "If he wants to organise a parade to show that he is a great leader, that is his business."

Daria Mitiuk contributed to this report.

A Kenyan court has sentenced four men to one year in prison or pay a fine of $7,700 (£5,800) for trying to smuggle thousands of live ants out of the country.

The four suspects – two Belgians, a Vietnamese and a Kenyan – were arrested last month with 5,000 ants at a guest house in the western town of Naivasha.

They had pleaded guilty to the charges and told the court that they were collecting the highly sought-after ants as a hobby and didn't think it was illegal.

But delivering the sentence on Wednesday, the court said the particular species of ants collected was valuable and they had thousands of them — not just a few.

It is believed that the ants were intended for exotic pet markets in Europe and Asia.

The contraband included giant African harvester ants, which are valued by some UK dealers at up to £170 ($220) each.

Belgian nationals Lornoy David and Seppe Lodewijckx, both 19, Vietnamese national Duh Hung Nguyen and Kenyan Dennis Ng'ang'a, were handed similar terms after the magistrate considered their mitigation arguments.

The Belgians were found with 5,000 ants, while Nguyen and Ng'ang'a had 300.

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), which is more used to protecting larger creatures, such as lions and elephants, has described this as a "landmark case".

The case showed a "disturbing shift in trafficking patterns - from iconic mammals to lesser-known species that are vital to ecological balance", the KWS said last month when the four were arrested.

The Belgian teens had entered Kenya on a tourist visa and were staying in Naivasha, a town popular with tourists for its animal parks and lakes.

The KWS said the demand for rare insect species was growing.

In Kenya, the ants are protected by international bio-diversity treaties and their trade is highly regulated.

You may also be interested in:

• The snipers trained to protect rhinos
• Northern white rhinos: The audacious plan that could save a species
• Kenya receives 17 rare antelopes from the US

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Former US President Joe Biden has given his first in-depth interview since he left the White House in January, speaking to the BBC about his legacy, foreign policy and his view of President Donald Trump's first 100 days.

He said that he had few regrets, but he offered grave warnings about global affairs as Europe marks 80 years since the end of World War Two on the continent.

Biden spent much of his time in public office – as a senator, vice-president and president – focusing on US foreign policy, and it remains a top concern.

The former president also reflected on his decision to drop out of the 2024 election race - but he had less to say about any mistakes he and the Democrats may have made along the way.

Here are five key takeaways from his interview with Nick Robinson for BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He admits decision to quit 2024 race was 'difficult'

Biden's ill-fated decision to seek a second presidential term may haunt Democrats for a generation. Three months removed from power, however, the former president said he didn't think "it would have mattered" if he had abandoned his re-election ambitions earlier, before a disastrous debate forced his hand in July 2024.

Kamala Harris, who became the nominee after Biden dropped out just four months before the election, was a "good candidate" who was "fully funded", he said.

Democratic strategists have lamented that the last-minute handover left their campaign flat-footed, ultimately aiding Trump's path to the White House, even as Democrats held a financial advantage in the 2024 race.

Biden boasted of being "so successful on our agenda" – a reference to the major legislation enacted in his first two years in office on the environment, infrastructure and social spending, as well as the better-than-expected Democratic performance in the 2022 midterm elections.

"It was hard to say now I'm going to stop," he said. "Things moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away."

Ultimately, quitting was "the right decision", he said, but it was "just a difficult decision".

• Political Thinking with Nick Robinson: Listen on BBC Sounds to the full interview
• Trump appeasing Putin with pressure on Ukraine, Biden tells BBC
• Biden on Trump: 'What president ever talks like that? That's not who we are'

A stark accusation of 'modern-day appeasement'

Biden described the Trump administration's suggestion that Ukraine give up territory as part of a peace deal with Russia as "modern-day appeasement" - a reference to European allies that allowed Adolf Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia in the 1930s in an ill-fated attempt to prevent a continent-wide conflict.

"I just don't understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to decide he's going to take significant portions of land that aren't his, that that's going to satisfy him. I don't quite understand," Biden said of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The term "appeasement" gets kicked around a lot in American politics, and the list of foreign leaders compared with modern-day "Hitlers" is a long one.

Though Biden's repeated assertion that Russian tanks would be rolling through central Europe if America and its allies didn't support Ukraine is impossible to prove, he views the threat posed by Putin as serious and worthy of the comparison.

Biden also said that if the US allowed a peace deal that favoured Russia, Putin's neighbours would be under economic, military and political pressure to accommodate Moscow's will in other ways. In his view, the promise of American support to European allies becomes less believable and less of a deterrent.

US-Europe alliance at risk

Under Biden, the US helped expand the Nato to include Finland and Sweden – one of the former president's signature foreign policy achievements. Now, he says Trump is turning his back on America's European allies and threatening the very foundations of Nato and its mutual defence agreement.

The former president described the thought of Nato breaking apart as a "grave concern". Already, he warned, US allies were doubting American leadership.

"I think it would change the modern history of the world if that occurs," he said. "We are not the essential nation, but we are the only nation in position to have the capacity to bring people together to lead the world."

There are some in Trump's circle – perhaps including the president himself – who believe that a more restrained America, less concerned with global security and more focused on regional self-sufficiency, is best way to ensure long-term prosperity in a world of competing global powers. They argue that America's post-Cold War dominance was a historical anomaly.

Biden, whose political career spans those decades of American supremacy, disagrees.

Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal: 'What the hell's going on here?'

In his interview, Biden sounded like most modern American presidents before him. He used words like freedom, democracy and opportunity to describe American principles.

But in Biden's view, those principles also include a sense of decorum, especially towards long-standing allies.

He said Trump's February meeting-turned-argument with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office was "sort of beneath America". He argued Trump's territorial designs on Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal were "not who we are".

"What president ever talks like that? That's not who we are. We're about freedom, democracy, opportunity, not about confiscation," he said.

A tepid response to Trump's first 100 days

When asked about Trump's first 100 days in office - which included dramatic attempts to expand presidential power - Biden said he would let history judge his successor, but "I don't see anything that's triumphant".

It was the kind of understatement that surely will irk some on the left. Since the start of Trump's second term, rank-and-file Democrats have been clamouring for their party to do more to resist the president's agenda.

Biden said he didn't think Trump would succeed in flouting courts or the law, or diminishing congressional power, in part because the president's fellow Republicans are "waking up to what Trump is about".

"I don't think he'll succeed in that effort," he said.

The idea that members of Trump's own party will turn on him is a recurring one for Biden. In 2019, he predicted there would be an "epiphany" among Republicans once Trump was out of the White House, ushering in a new era of bipartisanship.

It didn't exactly work out that way in 2024.

The UK government has hit back against claims by opposition parties that the newly-agreed trade deal with India could disadvantage British workers.

Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the BBC there was "no situation" in which he would "ever tolerate" British workers being undercut as a result of a trade agreement.

Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers will be exempt from paying National Insurance for three years. The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and to UK firms' workers transferred to India.

Opposition parties have claimed this could mean Indian workers become cheaper to employ than British workers.

But Reynolds said the deal would not impact British workers, pointing out the UK has 16 agreements preventing double taxation of work, which cover more than 50 countries - including the US, EU and South Korea.

"What the Conservatives are confused about, and Reform as well, is a situation where a business in India seconds someone for a short period of time to the UK, or a UK business seconds a worker to India for a short period of time, where you don't pay in simultaneously now to both social security systems," he told the BBC's Today programme.

Reynolds said the deal was a "huge economic win for the UK and would deliver "faster growth, higher wages, more tax revenue brilliant wins for goods and for services".

He said previously that Indian workers would still be required to pay the NHS immigration surcharge and would not be eligible for benefits from the National Insurance system.

Eighteen-year-olds will be allowed to drive trains after the minimum age was lowered from 20 in a bid to tackle driver shortages.

UK rail services are frequently disrupted due to a lack of drivers being available, and the problem is set to get worse with companies struggling to replace a growing number of people retiring with new recruits, the government said.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander announced the change as "bold action to improve train services and unlock thousands of jobs".

Union Aslef said it would open up opportunities for school or college leavers, while the Rail Safety and Standards Board said its research found "18-year-olds are capable of safely becoming train drivers".

In the UK several train companies rely on "rest day working" - when drivers voluntarily work extra shifts to run timetabled services.

But disruption can be caused to passenger journeys when there are not enough volunteers or drivers are off sick.

Some 87% of cancellations made the night before a service is scheduled to run are due to driver shortages, according to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The average age of a UK train driver is 48, with 30% set to reach retirement age by 2029, it said.

Fewer than 9% of train drivers are female, while under 12% are from an ethnic minority.

'Overwhelming support'

A consultation on lowering the minimum age for drivers carried out last year by the then Conservative government received "overwhelming support from across the industry", the DfT said.

Training to become a driver of mainline trains generally takes between one and two years. The DfT believes new job and apprenticeships for 18-year-olds could become available as early as December.

Alexander said the Labour government was "committed to getting the economy moving and a big part of that is getting young people into the workforce, putting them on track for a skilled and fulfilling career which will boost growth across the country".

Mick Whelan, general secretary of train drivers' union Aslef, said the industry currently missed out on young people wanting to become train drivers "as they don't wait around until they turn 20 to find a career".

He added the new policy would "increase diversity in the driver's cab" and also encourage more young people to take on the role.

The minimum age for train drivers has already been lowered in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the government said

Transport for London opened up its train driver apprenticeships on the underground to 18-year-olds in 2007.

How old is this conflict?

Why has there been so much unrest in the Indian-administered part?

What about hopes for peace?

Mohammed Waheed was fast asleep at his home in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the early hours of Wednesday morning when a huge blast shook his home.

"Before we could even process what was happening, more missiles struck, causing widespread panic and chaos," he told the BBC, adding that he had jumped out of bed and run outside along with his family and neighbours.

"Children were crying, women were running around, trying to find safety."

Mr Waheed lives in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir - it is one of at least three places that were hit by Indian missile strikes on Wednesday.

The Indian military said it carried out the strikes in response to a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians. It has blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the attacks, accusing Islamabad of tacitly supporting them - a charge Pakistan has consistently denied.

The BBC spoke to witnesses in both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir who described the strikes by India as well as the aftermath of shelling by Pakistan.

Pakistan said eight civilians were killed and 35 others injured as a result of the strikes this morning, according to Islamabad.

India's army has also said that at least seven civilians have been killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the Line of Control (LoC) - the de facto border between both countries.

'Killed while making tea'

Ruby Kaur, who lived in India's Poonch district along the LoC has been identified as one of the Indians who has been killed.

Her uncle, Buava Singh, told the BBC that a mortar shell struck near Ms Kaur's house around 1:45 am, killing her on the spot and injuring her daughter.

"Her husband was not keeping well. She woke up to make tea for him when the mortar shell landed close to her house," he said.

He added that the heavy shelling on Wednesday morning was something "we have never seen so far". Singh says that there were no community bunkers in the area, which meant residents were forced to take shelter in their homes.

"The shrapnel hit her head. She was bleeding heavily. We rushed her to a nearby hospital, but she was declared dead," Mr Singh said.

Another resident from Poonch said they heard "loud explosions for hours on Wednesday night".

"It was a panicky situation across the city and other areas close to the Line of Control (LoC)," Dr Zamrood Mughal said over phone.

"People couldn't sleep the entire night. People abandoned their homes and ran for safer places. A shell hit the main town near the forest office and damaged the nearby structure."

'Terrified of what might come next'

Muhammad Younis Shah in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, described how four missiles fired by India landed on an educational complex in the Nangal Sahadan suburb, destroying a mosque in the process.

"There is a school and college for children, a hostel, and a medical complex here," he says. "The first three missiles came in succession, while the fourth missile came with an interval of five to seven minutes."

While rescue operations in the are underway, locals say they are anticipating further escalation of the violence, and terrified of what may come next.

"We're terrified, and we don't know what to do," says Mr Waheed. "People are fleeing their homes and the sense of uncertainty is overwhelming."”

His fellow Muzaffarabad resident Shahnawaz echoes this, saying he and his family were now "desperately searching for safe locations".

"We were anticipating something would happen, and now we're gripped with fear of further escalations."

Delhi emphasised its actions on Wednesday were "focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature", but locals in the targeted areas in Pakistan-administered Kashmir say that their mosques and residential complexes were among the sites hit.

Mr Waheed told the BBC he could not fathom why his local mosque was hit in the strike which he claims injured "dozens of men and women" in his neighbourhood in Muzaffarabad.

"It's hard to understand," he says. "It was a normal street mosque where we prayed five times a day. We never saw any suspicious activity around it."

Delhi emphasised its actions on Wednesday targeted terrorist infrastructure and said thee were chosen "based on credible intelligence inputs".

But locals in the targeted areas in Pakistan-administered Kashmir say that their mosques and residential complexes were among the sites hit.

Mr Waheed cannot fathom why his local mosque was hit, which injured "dozens of men and women" in his neighbourhood in Muzaffarabad.

"It's hard to understand," he says. "It was a normal street mosque where we prayed five times a day. We never saw any suspicious activity around it."

Mohammed Waheed was fast asleep at his home in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the early hours of Wednesday morning when a huge blast shook his home.

"Before we could even process what was happening, more missiles struck, causing widespread panic and chaos," he told the BBC, adding that he had jumped out of bed and run outside along with his family and neighbours.

"Children were crying, women were running around, trying to find safety."

Mr Waheed lives in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir - it is one of at least three places that were hit by Indian missile strikes on Wednesday.

The Indian military said it carried out the strikes in response to a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians. It has blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the attacks, accusing Islamabad of tacitly supporting them - a charge Pakistan has consistently denied.

The BBC spoke to witnesses in both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir who described the strikes by India as well as the aftermath of shelling by Pakistan.

Pakistan said eight civilians were killed and 35 others injured as a result of the strikes this morning, according to Islamabad.

India's army has also said that at least seven civilians have been killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the Line of Control (LoC) - the de facto border between both countries.

'Killed while making tea'

Ruby Kaur, who lived in India's Poonch district along the LoC has been identified as one of the Indians who has been killed.

Her uncle, Buava Singh, told the BBC that a mortar shell struck near Ms Kaur's house around 1:45 am, killing her on the spot and injuring her daughter.

"Her husband was not keeping well. She woke up to make tea for him when the mortar shell landed close to her house," he said.

He added that the heavy shelling on Wednesday morning was something "we have never seen so far". Singh says that there were no community bunkers in the area, which meant residents were forced to take shelter in their homes.

"The shrapnel hit her head. She was bleeding heavily. We rushed her to a nearby hospital, but she was declared dead," Mr Singh said.

Another resident from Poonch said they heard "loud explosions for hours on Wednesday night".

"It was a panicky situation across the city and other areas close to the Line of Control (LoC)," Dr Zamrood Mughal said over phone.

"People couldn't sleep the entire night. People abandoned their homes and ran for safer places. A shell hit the main town near the forest office and damaged the nearby structure."

'Terrified of what might come next'

Muhammad Younis Shah in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, described how four missiles fired by India landed on an educational complex in the Nangal Sahadan suburb, destroying a mosque in the process.

"There is a school and college for children, a hostel, and a medical complex here," he says. "The first three missiles came in succession, while the fourth missile came with an interval of five to seven minutes."

While rescue operations in the are underway, locals say they are anticipating further escalation of the violence, and terrified of what may come next.

"We're terrified, and we don't know what to do," says Mr Waheed. "People are fleeing their homes and the sense of uncertainty is overwhelming."”

His fellow Muzaffarabad resident Shahnawaz echoes this, saying he and his family were now "desperately searching for safe locations".

"We were anticipating something would happen, and now we're gripped with fear of further escalations."

Delhi emphasised its actions on Wednesday were "focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature", but locals in the targeted areas in Pakistan-administered Kashmir say that their mosques and residential complexes were among the sites hit.

Mr Waheed told the BBC he could not fathom why his local mosque was hit in the strike which he claims injured "dozens of men and women" in his neighbourhood in Muzaffarabad.

"It's hard to understand," he says. "It was a normal street mosque where we prayed five times a day. We never saw any suspicious activity around it."

Delhi emphasised its actions on Wednesday targeted terrorist infrastructure and said thee were chosen "based on credible intelligence inputs".

But locals in the targeted areas in Pakistan-administered Kashmir say that their mosques and residential complexes were among the sites hit.

Mr Waheed cannot fathom why his local mosque was hit, which injured "dozens of men and women" in his neighbourhood in Muzaffarabad.

"It's hard to understand," he says. "It was a normal street mosque where we prayed five times a day. We never saw any suspicious activity around it."

Four anonymous housekeepers are suing Motown legend Smokey Robinson for $50 million (£37 million), accusing him of sexual assault.

A complaint filed in Los Angeles superior court accuses the 85-year-old of sexual battery, false imprisonment, negligence and gender violence, in addition to a number of labour violations related to wages, breaks, meal times and overtime pay.

The lawsuit also names Robinson's wife, Frances Robinson, claiming she contributed to a hostile work environment, and used "ethnically pejorative words and language".

Representatives for the Robinsons did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and the accusations could not be independently verified.

Robinson was Motown's first hitmaker, writing number one hits like Mary Wells' My Guy and the Temptations' My Girl.

Born William Robinson Jr in Michigan, he was both a talent scout for the record label and one of its most prominent recording artists, known for songs like Tracks of My Tears, Shop Around and Tears of a Clown.

He has spots in both the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Songwriters Halls of Fame, and claims to have credits on more than 4,000 songs.

Robinson's reputation and stature was an intimidating factor for his accusers, who were made to feel "powerless", their lawyer said at a press conference in Los Angeles.

"They're Hispanic women who were employed by the Robinsons earning below minimum wage," said John Harris.

"As low-wage women in vulnerable positions, they lacked the resources and options necessary to protect themselves from sexual assaults."

The women are suing under the pseudonyms Jane Doe 1, 2, 3 and 4, due to the sexual misconduct allegations, including rape, being levelled against the musician.

Three are former housekeepers and one was the singer's personal assistant, cook and hairdresser, according to court documents.

In the lawsuit, all four women claim that Robinson would summon them to various areas of his properties in Chatsworth, Bell Canyon and Las Vegas, at times when his wife was away.

Sometimes emerging naked from a shower, he forced them to have various types of sex over a number of years, starting in 2006, the lawsuit alleges.

Jane Does 1, 3 and 4 all allege Robinson sexually assaulted them in the "blue bedroom" of his Chatsworth residence, claiming he would lay down a towel to protect the bed sheets prior to the assaults.

Jane Doe 2's allegations state that Robinson raped her in the laundry room and garage of his Chatsworth residence, where closed-circuit cameras were unable to see.

The women claim that during the alleged assaults, Robinson used physical barriers and threats of force to prevent them from fleeing.

The lawsuit also includes several allegations of workplace violations.

All four women say they worked 10 hours a day, for six days a week without being paid minimum wage or overtime. They also claim to have worked holidays without receiving a holiday rate.

According to their lawsuit, the employees all quit because of the alleged sexual misconduct and hostile work environment.

The BBC has contacted Robinson's representatives for a response to the lawsuit.

No police reports or criminal charges have been filed against the musician.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles County District Attorney said the women's claims were not under review because law enforcement had not presented a case.

Los Angeles police said they had no statement on the matter.

Sudan has cut diplomatic ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), after repeatedly accusing the Gulf nation of backing the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the country's civil war.

The announcement came as the RSF were blamed for attacks on the usually safe city of Port Sudan, which started on Sunday and have continued until Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Sudan's Defence Minister Yassin Ibrahim accused the UAE of violating his country's sovereignty through its "proxy", the RSF.

The UAE has repeatedly denied allegations that it is giving financial, military and political support to the paramilitary force.

Two years of conflict has killed thousands, forced millions from their homes and created the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

As a result of the defence minister's announcement, the Sudanese ambassador will be withdrawn from the UAE and Sudan will shut its diplomatic missions in the Gulf nation.

• A simple guide to what is happening in Sudan
• From prized artworks to bullet shells: how war devastated Sudan's museums

Since Sunday, drone strikes have hit an international airport, a major power station and a hotel in Port Sudan. The army has accused the RSF of being behind the assault, but the paramilitary group is yet to comment.

On Wednesday the Sudanese army said it had foiled a strike on the country's biggest naval base.

"They [the drones] were met with anti-aircraft missiles," an unnamed source told the AFP news agency.

Until now, Port Sudan had avoided bombardment and was regarded as one of the safest places in the war-ravaged nation.

Sudan's army has often accused the UAE of arming the RSF.

Both the UK and the US have singled out the UAE in separate appeals for outside countries to stop backing Sudan's warring parties.

However, on Monday, the UN's top court dismissed Sudan's case against the UAE, in which it accused the Gulf state of complicity in genocide.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the case could not proceed because the UAE had opted out Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which means that it cannot be sued by other states over genocide allegations.

Reem Ketait, the UAE's deputy assistant minister for political affairs, said the court's decision was "clear and decisive".

"The international community must focus urgently on ending this devastating war and supporting the Sudanese people, and it must demand humanitarian aid reaches all those in need," she said.

Both the army and RSF have been accused of war crimes.

Additional reporting by Cecilia Macaulay

More BBC stories on the war in Sudan:

• Inside Khartoum, a city left in ruins after two years of war
• 'Child in arms, luggage on my head, I fled Sudan camp for safety'
• Sudan's years of war - BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica