US President Donald Trump has suggested some TV networks should have their licences "taken away", as he backed America's broadcast regulator in a row over the suspension of ABC host Jimmy Kimmel.

The Disney-owned network announced on Wednesday evening it was pulling the comedian off air "indefinitely" amid a backlash over his remarks about the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week.

On Monday, Kimmel suggested the suspect was a Maga Republican, although authorities in Utah had said the alleged gunman was "indoctrinated with leftist ideology".

ABC took Jimmy Kimmel Live! off air after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened action over his remarks.

• ABC takes Jimmy Kimmel off air over Charlie Kirk comments

Trump spoke about the issue to reporters on Thursday aboard Air Force One while returning from a state visit to the UK.

"I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states [in last year's election]," the president said.

"They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a licence. I would think maybe their license should be taken away."

In his monologue on Monday, Kimmel, 57, said the "Maga gang" was "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and trying to "score political points from it".

He also likened Trump's reaction to the death of his 31-year-old political confidant to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish".

After the shooting, Kimmel had also gone on Instagram to condemn the attack and send "love" to the Kirk family.

Speaking to Fox on Thursday, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the suspension of Kimmel was not "the last shoe to drop".

"We're going to continue to hold these broadcasters accountable to the public interest," he said.

"And if broadcasters don't like that simple solution, they can turn their license into the FCC."

Kimmel's suspension was announced on Wednesday evening shortly after Nexstar Media, one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the US, said it would not air his show "for the foreseeable future".

Nexstar called his remarks about Kirk "offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse".

Carr praised Nexstar - which is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2bn (£4.5bn) merger with Tegna - and said he hoped other broadcasters would follow its lead.

Sinclair, the largest ABC affiliate group in the US, said it would air a special remembrance programme dedicated to Kirk during the original time slot for Kimmel's show on Friday.

Kirk, a high-profile conservative activist and father-of-two, died of a single gunshot wound to the neck while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem on 10 September.

His widow, Erika Kirk, was named on Thursday as the new head of the organisation her husband co-founded, Turning Point USA.

Tyler Robinson, 22, was charged with aggravated murder on Tuesday, with prosecutors saying they will seek the death penalty.

Writers, actors, former US President Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats condemned Kimmel's suspension.

Obama said the incident represented a new and dangerous level of cancel culture.

"After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like," he posted on X.

Actor Ben Stiller said it "isn't right", while Hacks star Jean Smart said she was "horrified at the cancellation".

"What Jimmy said was free speech, not hate speech," she added.

The Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild (WGA), two Hollywood labour unions, condemned the decision as a violation of constitutional free speech rights.

But others argued Kimmel's suspension was accountability, not cancel culture.

"When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it that's not cancel culture," said Dave Portnoy, who founded media company Barstool Sports.

"That is consequences for your actions."

Late-night Fox host Greg Gutfeld argued that Kimmel had "deliberately and misleadingly" blamed the killing of Kirk on the activist's "allies and friends".

British presenter Piers Morgan said Kimmel had "lied about Charlie Kirk's assassin being Maga" and his comments caused "understandable outrage all over America".

"Why is he being heralded as some kind of free speech martyr?" he added.

But one of Carr's FCC leadership colleagues, commissioner Anna Gomez, criticised the regulator's stance on Kimmel.

She said that "an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship or control".

• Listen to Americast on BBC Sounds: Is the Trump administration clamping down on America's first amendment protection of free speech?

BBC News used AI to help write the summary at the top of this article. It was edited by BBC journalists. Find out more.

The US has for the sixth time vetoed a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council that would have demanded an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages.

US deputy Middle East envoy Morgan Ortagus said the text did not go far enough in condemning Hamas or recognise Israel's right to defend itself.

All 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favour of the draft resolution - which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as "catastrophic" and called on Israel to lift all aid restrictions.

It comes as the UN's humanitarian office warns that the last lifelines for civilians are collapsing in Gaza City as Israel expands its military offensive.

• 'Cataclysmic' situation in Gaza City, UN official says, as Israeli tanks advance
• The frantic race to save historic treasures from Israeli bombs

On the global stage, Israel and its closest ally look increasingly isolated.

Speaking prior to the vote, Ortagus said Washington's opposition to the resolution should "come as no surprise".

"It fails to condemn Hamas or recognise Israel's right to defend itself, and it wrongly legitimises the false narratives benefitting Hamas, which have sadly found currency in this council," she said.

After the vote, UN members reacted swiftly to express their disappointment.

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour called the US's decision "deeply regrettable and painful", saying it had prevented the Security Council from "playing its rightful role in the face of these atrocities".

Pakistan's ambassador Asim Ahmad described the veto as "a dark moment in this chamber".

"The world is watching. The cries of children should pierce our hearts," he said.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria's ambassador, apologised to the Palestinian people.

"Palestinian brothers, Palestinian sisters, forgive us," he said.

"Forgive us, because the world speaks of rights, but denies them to Palestinians. Forgive us because our efforts, our sincere efforts, shattered against this wall of rejection."

This latest UN vote came just days before world leaders gather for the UN General Assembly where Gaza will be a major topic and key American allies, including the UK, are expected to recognise an independent Palestinian state.

In Gaza, thousands of people are continuing to flee the region amid ongoing deadly attacks as Israeli tanks and troops continue to advance on the third day of a ground offensive.

Olga Cherevko, a spokeswoman for the UN's humanitarian office, told the BBC the situation in Gaza City is "nothing short of cataclysmic".

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 65,141 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since then, according to the territory's health ministry.

The ministry says another 435 people have so far died during the war as a result of malnutrition and starvation, including four over the past 24 hours.

An Eritrean man is due to be flown out of the UK on Friday morning under the government's "one in, one out" deal with France, after a last-minute court bid to delay the departure failed.

He will become the second person removed from the UK under the policy when his flight leaves at 06.15.

This comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed the year-long pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.

The first flight under the agreement returned one person, an Indian national, to France on Thursday.

• First migrant deported to France under 'one in one out' deal
• Why do Channel migrants want to come to the UK?
• How many people cross the Channel in small boats?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the first return demonstrated to people attempting small boat crossings "if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you".

The Eritrean man set to fly to France on Friday morning arrived in England on a small boat in August.

His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of human trafficking.

In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday, the presiding judge said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the unnamed man.

Mr Justice Sheldon said there was "significant public interest" in removing him, noting that home secretary was acting in the public interest by pursuing a policy to combat dangerous people smuggling.

He would instead have an opportunity to make his case in France.

"There is no serious issue to be tried in this case that the claimant has been denied procedural fairness," said the judge.

The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe.

He said he had lived in France, sleeping rough, and eventually made his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England.

But in his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon noted the man had given differing accounts of his allegations of trafficking, and so it was open to the home office to conclude that "his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed".

The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.

The new policy means that a migrant who is refused protection in the UK because they have suffered slavery or trafficking may only challenge that decision after they have been flown out of the country.

The rule change also came after a different Eritrean man facing a return to France won a temporary delay. The government said it would appeal against that decision.

US President Donald Trump weighed in on illegal immigration to the UK at the end of his state visit.

During a press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he suggested using the military to combat small boat crossings.

Starmer countered by affirming that the UK had "a number of cooperation deals with other countries" in place and are taking the issue "incredibly seriously".

The Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, but it is not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.

Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.

The "one in, one out" deal is intended to deter people from turning to smugglers to cross the Channel because of the risk they could be sent back.

It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come in return.

Neither government has suggested that the plan will smash the crossings on its own.

Around 5,590 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August.

US President Donald Trump has suggested some TV networks should have their licences "taken away", as he backed America's broadcast regulator in a row over the suspension of ABC host Jimmy Kimmel.

The Disney-owned network announced on Wednesday evening it was pulling the comedian off air "indefinitely" amid a backlash over his remarks about the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week.

On Monday, Kimmel suggested the suspect was a Maga Republican, although authorities in Utah had said the alleged gunman was "indoctrinated with leftist ideology".

ABC took Jimmy Kimmel Live! off air after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened action over his remarks.

• ABC takes Jimmy Kimmel off air over Charlie Kirk comments

Trump spoke about the issue to reporters on Thursday aboard Air Force One while returning from a state visit to the UK.

"I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states [in last year's election]," the president said.

"They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a licence. I would think maybe their license should be taken away."

In his monologue on Monday, Kimmel, 57, said the "Maga gang" was "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and trying to "score political points from it".

He also likened Trump's reaction to the death of his 31-year-old political confidant to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish".

After the shooting, Kimmel had also gone on Instagram to condemn the attack and send "love" to the Kirk family.

Speaking to Fox on Thursday, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the suspension of Kimmel was not "the last shoe to drop".

"We're going to continue to hold these broadcasters accountable to the public interest," he said.

"And if broadcasters don't like that simple solution, they can turn their license into the FCC."

Kimmel's suspension was announced on Wednesday evening shortly after Nexstar Media, one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the US, said it would not air his show "for the foreseeable future".

Nexstar called his remarks about Kirk "offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse".

Carr praised Nexstar - which is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2bn (£4.5bn) merger with Tegna - and said he hoped other broadcasters would follow its lead.

Sinclair, the largest ABC affiliate group in the US, said it would air a special remembrance programme dedicated to Kirk during the original time slot for Kimmel's show on Friday.

Kirk, a high-profile conservative activist and father-of-two, died of a single gunshot wound to the neck while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem on 10 September.

His widow, Erika Kirk, was named on Thursday as the new head of the organisation her husband co-founded, Turning Point USA.

Tyler Robinson, 22, was charged with aggravated murder on Tuesday, with prosecutors saying they will seek the death penalty.

Writers, actors, former US President Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats condemned Kimmel's suspension.

Obama said the incident represented a new and dangerous level of cancel culture.

"After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like," he posted on X.

Actor Ben Stiller said it "isn't right", while Hacks star Jean Smart said she was "horrified at the cancellation".

"What Jimmy said was free speech, not hate speech," she added.

The Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild (WGA), two Hollywood labour unions, condemned the decision as a violation of constitutional free speech rights.

But others argued Kimmel's suspension was accountability, not cancel culture.

"When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it that's not cancel culture," said Dave Portnoy, who founded media company Barstool Sports.

"That is consequences for your actions."

Late-night Fox host Greg Gutfeld argued that Kimmel had "deliberately and misleadingly" blamed the killing of Kirk on the activist's "allies and friends".

British presenter Piers Morgan said Kimmel had "lied about Charlie Kirk's assassin being Maga" and his comments caused "understandable outrage all over America".

"Why is he being heralded as some kind of free speech martyr?" he added.

But one of Carr's FCC leadership colleagues, commissioner Anna Gomez, criticised the regulator's stance on Kimmel.

She said that "an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship or control".

• Listen to Americast on BBC Sounds: Is the Trump administration clamping down on America's first amendment protection of free speech?

BBC News used AI to help write the summary at the top of this article. It was edited by BBC journalists. Find out more.

Concern practice is 'endemic across the game'

Companies 'exploiting a loophole and putting fans at risk'

Inside the Etihad alongside Man City's most ardent supporters

'It's an arms race'

US President Donald Trump has said he "didn't want" London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan at the state banquet hosted by the King at Windsor Castle.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One heading back the US, Trump described Sir Sadiq as "among the worst mayors in the world", saying he had wanted to attend the event, but "I asked that he not be there".

The BBC understands Sir Sadiq did not seek or expect an invite to the state banquet, and a source close to the mayor said Trump's politics sowed "fear and division".

This latest war of words adds to the pair's tumultuous feud, with Trump in 2019 calling the mayor "a stone-cold loser" and Sir Sadiq accusing him of stirring up far-right politics.

Trump echoed his past attacks on the mayor's governing of London, calling him a "disaster" on immigration.

"I think the Mayor of London Khan is among the worst mayors in the world, and we have some bad ones," he said.

"I think he's done a terrible job. Crime in London is through the roof."

"I asked that he not be there. He wanted to be there, as I understand, I didn't want him."

In response, a source close to Sir Sadiq rejected Trump's assessment of the mayor's work.

"Trump's politics is one of fear and division. This includes talking down our great capital city," they said.

"London is a global success story - it's open, dynamic and safer than major US cities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons record numbers of Americans are choosing to make London their home."

The pair's long-running row dates back to 2015 when the Labour politician condemned Trump's suggestion that Muslims should be banned from travelling to the US. A year later, Trump challenging the mayor to an IQ test.

The US leader also attacked the mayor's handling of the London Bridge terror attack in 2017.

During the US leader's first state visit in 2019, Sir Sadiq permitted a plan to fly a giant inflatable "Trump baby" blimp to coincide with his trip.

In July, Trump took another swipe at the mayor during a press conference with Sir Keir Starmer in Scotland, calling Sir Sadiq a "nasty person", to which the prime minister interjected saying: "He's a friend of mine, actually."

The US president's second state visit to the UK - unprecedented for a non-royal - was largely marked by pomp and ceremony to signal the warm relations between the two allies.

However, it was also mired by protests as thousands gathered in Parliament Square.

Four men were arrested after images of Trump and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were projected on to Windsor Castle ahead of the state banquet.

The Republic of Ireland has committed to new legislation that will ensure full co-operation with a reformed UK legacy body dealing with cases related to the Northern Ireland Troubles.

It is part of a "new framework" agreed between the British and Irish governments, to be unveiled on Friday.

It also involves a legacy unit being set-up within An Garda Síochána (the Irish police force) and a €25m (£22m) support fund for victims.

The deal seeks to heal a rift between London and Dublin created by the current Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act.

Victims' groups and political parties have been briefed on the agreement, which will require new legislation to be passed in both the UK and Ireland in the months ahead.

Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Tánaiste (Irish deputy PM) Simon Harris will jointly launch the agreement.

Harris is expected to describe it as "an imperfect opportunity" to deal with the legacy issue.

The two governments have been seeking a reset on legacy issues since the UK general election last year.

A core part of the deal involves significant changes to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).

It will be renamed the Legacy Commission, with a new oversight board established.

Irish state bodies, such as the gardaí (Irish police), which do not currently assist ICRIR investigations, will begin co-operating once the changes come into effect.

The new gardaí legacy unit will be a single-point of contact on Troubles-related cases for victims and bereaved families.

A separate body will also be created to accept information about Troubles-related murders.

London and Dublin believe the two bodies reflect what was agreed, but never implemented, under the Stormont House Agreement in 2014.

What is the Legacy Act?

The current Legacy Act, passed by the last UK government in 2023, was widely opposed by Labour, all Northern Ireland parties, several victims' groups and the Irish government.

It created a new legacy body known as the ICRIR to take over all Troubles-era cases from 1 May 2024, including those on the desk of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The act shut down all historical inquests.

The act's most controversial element, the offer of conditional immunity to suspects, was disapplied following legal action by bereaved families.

The court ruled this part of the act was incompatible with human rights legislation and the Windsor Framework.

Labour pledged to repeal the Legacy Act and replace it after winning the last election, including agreeing a way forward with Dublin.

The act included controversial measures, such as allowing the ICRIR to grant conditional amnesties in return for information.

However, this and other aspects of the act were later ruled unlawful.

Ireland launched an inter-state case against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

This is unlikely to be withdrawn until after the UK passes new legacy legislation, which will include the overhaul of the ICRIR.

'This could be doomed to fail'

Emmett McConomy, whose 11-year-old brother Stephen was killed by a soldier in Londonderry in 1982, said any long-awaited new framework to address the legacy of the Troubles must "meet the needs of all victims."

Speaking to BBC Radio Foyle's North West Today programme ahead of Friday's announcement, Mr McConomy said he hopes the new framework will bring "positive change" and be "a step in the right direction" for the many people affected by the conflict in Northern Ireland.

However, he expressed concern about the level of engagement both governments had undertaken with victims regarding the framework.

"Without proper buy-in from victims," he said, "this could sadly be doomed to fail."

"The most important people in all of this are the victims.

"What input have we had into these proposals? For me, I don't believe there has been much consultation - at least none that I am aware of.

"If the people this is designed for are not consulted or brought in at the early stages of developing these mechanisms, then surely they are doomed to fail.

"Transparency, integrity, independence, and a genuine desire to get to the truth and acknowledge families must be at the centre of whatever is being done."

The Taliban government has removed books written by women from the university teaching system in Afghanistan as part of a new ban which has also outlawed the teaching of human rights and sexual harassment.

Some 140 books by women - including titles like "Safety in the Chemical Laboratory" - were among 680 books found to be of "concern" due to "anti-Sharia and Taliban policies".

The universities were further told they were no longer allowed to teach 18 subjects, with a Taliban official saying they were "in conflict with the principles of Sharia and the system's policy".

The decree is the latest in a series of restrictions which the Taliban have brought in since returning to power four years ago.

Just this week, fibre-optic internet was banned in at least 10 provinces on the orders of the Taliban's supreme leader in a move officials said was to prevent immorality.

While the rules have had an impact on many aspects of life, women and girls have been particularly hard-hit: they are barred from accessing education over the sixth grade, with one of their last routes to further training cut off in late 2024, when midwifery courses were quietly shuttered.

Now even university subjects about women have been targeted: six of the 18 banned are specifically about women, including Gender and Development, The Role of Women in Communication, and Women's Sociology.

The Taliban government has said it respects women's rights in accordance with their interpretation of Afghan culture and Islamic law.

'A void in education'

A member of the committee reviewing the books confirmed the ban on books written by women, telling BBC Afghan that "all books authored by women are not allowed to be taught".

Zakia Adeli, the former deputy minister of justice prior to the Taliban's return and one of the authors who has found their books on the banned list, was unsurprised by the move.

"Considering what the Taliban have done over the past four years, it was not far-fetched to expect them to impose changes on the curriculum," she said.

"Given the Taliban's misogynistic mindset and policies, it is only natural that when women themselves are not allowed to study, their views, ideas and writings are also suppressed."

The new guidelines, which have been seen by BBC Afghan, were issued in late August.

Ziaur Rahman Aryubi, the deputy academic director of the Taliban government's Ministry of Higher Education, said in a letter to universities that the decisions had been made by a panel of "religious scholars and experts".

As well as books by women, the ban appears to have targeted books by Iranian authors or publishers, with one member of the book review panel telling the BBC it was designed to "prevent the infiltration of Iranian content" into the Afghan curriculum".

In the 50-page list sent to all universities in Afghanistan, 679 titles appear, 310 of which are either authored by Iranian writers or published in Iran.

But a professor at one institution, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he feared it would be almost impossible to fill the gap.

"Books by Iranian authors and translators serve as the primary link between Afghanistan's universities and the global academic community. Their removal creates a substantial void in higher education," they said.

A professor at Kabul University told the BBC that under such circumstances, they are forced to prepare textbook chapters themselves, taking into account the do's and don'ts imposed by the Taliban government.

But the crucial question is whether these chapters can be prepared according to global standards or not.

The BBC has approached the Taliban's Ministry of Education for comment.

Sanctions for doctors guilty of sexual misconduct in the UK are too lenient in around a quarter of cases, a review suggests.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) stands accused of failing victims and compounding their trauma. The criticism is based on the outcomes of 46 cases with offences including harassment, rape, and assaults of patients, colleagues and children.

Some medics were handed suspensions instead of following General Medical Council advice to strike them off the medical register.

The MPTS says it recognises the impact tribunal decisions have on all those involved and will soon publish new guidance for tribunals.

The MPTS is the body that takes evidence and rules on whether doctors are fit to practice in the United Kingdom.

It is independent of but funded by and accountable to the doctors' regulator - the General Medical Council - responsible for investigating complaints and bringing prosecutions against doctors.

This new study by six independent academics, analysed 222 MPTS tribunal cases heard between August 2023 and August 2024.

Of these cases, 46 involved proven sexual misconduct.

Harassment and grooming

One of the 46 cases from 2024 involved a UK transplant surgeon who was given an eight month suspension despite misconduct spanning over a decade.

He was accused of abuses of power, targeting multiple trainees under his supervision, sexual harassment, non-consensual touching during surgery and racism.

The General Medical Council (GMC) wanted to strike him off altogether and, along with the Professional Standards Authority, appealed what was seen as a lenient MPTS decision.

Another more recent case involved a doctor who knowingly entered into a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient whom he had pursued and groomed from the age of 14.

He was suspended for 12 months rather than struck off.

The panel cited evidence of insight, remediation, and remorse.

The report authors highlighted inconsistency in the sanctions imposed on doctors, a chronic lack of training for tribunal members and poor support for victims and witnesses.

'A system more skilled at facilitating abusers'

Most of these cases involving sexual misconduct - 65% - led to doctors being struck off and barred from practicing, but 35% resulted in only a short suspension.

Nearly one in four sanctions (23.9%) imposed in these cases were more lenient than recommendations from the GMC and in no case did the tribunal impose tougher sanctions.

All the doctors involved in the sexual misconduct cases were men, and almost all of them were consultants, GPs or registrars.

Several cases involved multiple victims, which the researchers say demonstrates repeated and systemic abuse - some over a period of 9 years.

Mei Nortley, a consultant vascular surgeon and lead author of the research says the MPTS needs to consider whether it is doing its job properly.

"Allowing rapists, sexual predators and those who use manipulation and coercion to return as practising doctors brings this into question," he said.

In recent months, the MPTS has begun to update its guidance for tribunals and on sanctions, focusing on sexual misconduct cases.

But the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS England) said the finding show the current system of medical regulation is failing.

Vice President Prof Vivien Lees, Vice President of RCS England, said: "Guidance alone is not enough. Tribunal panels must be trained and apply it consistently to ensure fair, robust decisions.

"RCS England will hold the MPTS to account to ensure these vital changes are fully delivered."

The General Medical Council said it takes "a zero-tolerance and proactive approach" to all forms of sexual misconduct.

"Where we feel the sanctions applied by the independent tribunal are too lenient – we can, and do appeal.

"A significant proportion of our appeals are successful and result in stronger sanctions."

Failing staff and patients

Tamzin Cuming and Prof Carrie Newlands from the Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery (WPSMS) said: "Right now, the system gives little more than a slap on the wrist for abuse, when only erasure and accountability can ensure safety.

"Without reform, powerful perpetrators will continue with impunity.

A spokesman for the MPTS said it was important that doctors had a fair hearing.

"We will soon publish a new suite of guidance for tribunals, covering all aspects of our hearings.

"It will draw together existing guidance and recent case law, as well as best practice from other jurisdictions, to assist tribunals in reaching consistent and well-reasoned decisions," he said.

Joy Crookes knows a thing or two about music.

As a kid, her dad encouraged her to soak up the classics, from Nick Cave and King Tubby to The Pogues and hours of music from Pakistan.

"He'd say, 'This is from your ends of the world, you should hear this'," says the singer, who's of Irish-Bangladeshi heritage.

Before long, she'd bought her first album (Marvin Gaye's What's Going On) and uploaded her first cover to YouTube, playing a cheap guitar she bought in Argos.

Her debut album, Skin, was released in 2021, earning a Mercury Prize nomination for its soulful, perceptive ballads. The following summer, Crookes played Glastonbury's Pyramid Stage for the first time, bursting into tears at the scale of the occasion.

But as a music nerd, who'd devoured back issues of NME magazine as a teenager, she knew what came next: The second album slump.

Except... it never came.

"People think the scary part of your second album is the writing," she says. "Like, 'Oh no, what am I going to say?'"

"For me, I've always got something to [expletive] say, so it wasn't that difficult to write.

Work on her second album, Juniper, started years ago. Crookes posted demos and early sketches on her Instagram feed in 2022, many of which have made the final track listing. So what took so long?

"Making sure that the songs sounded the way they should, to match the songwriting," she says. "That was the hard part."

Take her recent single Perfect Crime. A slinky, smoky dancefloor filler, it finds Crookes giving herself a pep talk as she prepares to plunge back into the dating world.

Fresh and funny and light on its feet – it needed "20 or 30" different takes before she was satisfied.

"It's incredibly janky but, for me, the jank is the important thing," she says. If it was polished, it'd ruin the fun of the song.

"If you go through the individual elements, there are crazy moments that make no sense – but that's what makes the song come together."

If that makes her sound like an obsessive perfectionist, think again. Other songs on Juniper – from the emotionally exposing Mother, to the brutal break-up ballad Mathematics – were recorded in a single session.

On the album's philosophical closer, Paris, she even lets herself sing off key – preferring the honesty of that vocal to a more polished, auto-tuned alternative.

"Growing up, my dad used to talk about how Van Morrison would 'let go' in his songs - there's moments in Listen to the Lion and Astral Weeks where he's just free.

"And I think for the first time ever in my career, and just as a person, I let myself go on this record."

Anxiety attacks

The journey to accepting those imperfections was rough: There's a second, more distressing, reason that Crookes' second album took so long.

The 26-year-old had always suffered from anxiety but, sometime around 2022, it tightened its grip.

After wrapping up the promotion of her debut record, she entered what she describes as a "very hedonistic phase in my personal life".

"I had very little self worth," she explains. "I was constantly trying to escape my body and my life."

During that time, she also found herself in an abusive relationship, the end of which triggered a protracted period of poor mental health.

"The anxiety had become so significant that it had become completely physical," she says.

"It wasn't just panic attacks. I couldn't keep food down. Everything I did involved me having a vomiting attack."

With the help of some "very intrusive" therapy, she began to make a recovery – but it was hard work.

Anxiety had become so familiar that it was like "a part of my family, a part of my friendship group," she says.

Letting go meant unlearning years of habitual behaviour.

It's a process she sings about on First Last Dance: "It's high time you let me go… but breaking up is so hard to do".

"The song is specifically about the vomiting - and how I cannot let [anxiety] take over that much," she says.

"So it's not necessarily, 'Goodbye anxiety, I can't have you any more,' even though I'd love for it to be that simple.

"It's more like, 'I can't have you be so prominent that I physically cannot function'."

The song marked a turning point – something she illustrates by pairing the subject matter with a feathery, Kylie-esque dance beat.

For the rest of the album, she's sorting out her priorities.

I Know You'd Kill is a tribute to her manager, Charlie, whose protective instincts kicked in when a person on the fringes of Crookes' team began behaving in a way that made others "feel unsafe".

"Charlie said,' Well, you know I'd kill for you'," recalls Crookes.

"I couldn't look at her because she looked like diamonds," she adds, confessing she may have been on mushrooms at the time. "I had to turn away from her because she was shining so brightly."

It was a reminder that, as dark as things had become, she had real friends. With their support, and as her mental health improved, Crookes began to rediscover herself.

On the strutting, guitar-driven Somebody To You, she waves goodbye to a suffocating relationship and asks: "Who am I when I'm out of your sight?"

It's not just about romantic partners, she explains, but the music industry, and public perception.

"I've been in this industry since I was a child, and I don't really want to be defined by just music," she says.

"I'd like to think that my life is a plethora of things. My identity is complex."

As if to prove it, she recently made her film debut in Ish – the story of two best friends whose friendship is tested by an ugly and heavy-handed police stop and search.

The role took Crookes, who plays an older sister to the lead character, all the way to the Venice Film Festival, where the movie won the coveted audience award.

She's had other film offers since, but she has her sights set on being part of Gurinder Chadha's sequel to Bend It Like Beckham - on the soundtrack, on the screen, "or preferably both".

The original, which starred Parminder Nagra and Keira Knightley, had a profound impact on her as a child.

"I mean, it literally touches on brownness and Irishness - and you can tell that there was a time where it was meant to be a lesbian story, as well.

"I'm really interested in how [the sequel] turns out," she says.

For now, though, Crookes is gearing up for the release of Juniper. A testament to her strength, it's rich and profound, unafraid to confront complexity, but peppered with heart and humour. The second album slump has been sent packing.

Even so, sending the record into the world has prompted mixed emotions.

"When you overcome stuff like that, one minute you feel so proud and the next you feel so sad for yourself that you went through such a hard time," she reflects.

"It's what makes releasing this album so euphoric and so sad at the same time."

The next album, which she's already working on, will be different. Crookes is happy, relaxed, free. It's a state of mind she couldn't have imagined in 2022.

"It's kind of amazing. I pinch myself every day. I'm making jokes about stuff that would have absolutely floored me two years ago.

"I feel very alive at the moment, and I am so grateful."

Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.