Two newspapers have published an email said to have been sent by the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, calling him a "supreme friend" - despite his conviction for sex offences.

The Sun and the Mail on Sunday reported that the email from 2011 was sent weeks after the duchess had publicly distanced herself from the disgraced financier.

A spokesperson for the duchess - the former wife of the Duke of York - said the email was to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation.

In an interview in 2011, the duchess said her involvement with Epstein had been a "gigantic error of judgment".

At the time, the duchess also promised she would never have anything to do with Epstein again, saying: "I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children."

"I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgement was made, my having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed," she added.

Epstein had been jailed three years earlier for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

But The Sun and Mail on Sunday said shortly after giving the interview in 2011, she emailed Epstein, saying she had not used the word "paedophilia" in reference to him him.

"As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the 'P word' about you but understand it was reported that I did," she wrote.

"I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family."

A spokesperson for the duchess said the email was sent after Epstein had threatened to sue her for defamation - in an effort to assuage him.

"The Duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims," they said.

"Like many people, she was taken in by his lies. As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations against him, she not only cut off contact but condemned him publicly, to the extent that he then threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia."

The spokesperson added that the duchess stood by her public condemnation of Epstein.

"She does not resile from anything she said then. This email was sent in the context of advice the Duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats."

Epstein, a well-connected financier and convicted sex offender, was found dead by suicide in 2019 while awaiting a trial for sex trafficking.

British artist Morrissey has cancelled two shows in the US after receiving a death threat ahead of a concert in Ottawa, Canada.

A 26-year-old Ottawa man was released on bail after allegedly uttering a threat to kill the singer, whose real name is Steven Morrissey, ahead of his performance at a music festival last week.

The event went on as planned, but the singer later cancelled two shows in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Morrissey was the front man of the rock band The Smiths, but left the band in 1987 to pursue a solo career.

He is known for being outspoken on issues such as animal welfare and politics.

In 2006, he refused to tour in Canada in protest at the annual seal hunt.

After the threat against his life in Ottawa last week, he cancelled Friday's show in Connecticut and one in Boston.

"In recent days, there has been a credible threat on Morrissey's life," said a statement from the Boston venue on Instagram.

"Out of an abundance of caution for the safety of both the artist and the band, tomorrow's engagement at the MGM Music Hall at Fenway has been canceled."

Successive UK governments have said recognition of a Palestinian state should be part of a peace process at a time when it can have maximum impact.

In July, amid the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and under growing pressure from his own MPs, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer decided that time was now.

He announced the UK would recognise a Palestinian state in September, coinciding with the UN General Assembly, unless Israel met certain conditions.

Those included agreeing to a ceasefire and committing to a long-term sustainable peace that delivers a two-state solution.

Downing Street knew the conditions were unlikely to be met, with the current Israeli government strongly opposed to progressing towards a two-state solution.

Sources inside the Foreign Office when the decision was made insist it will be a galvanising moment, which will have an impact on the ground.

But even they admit it would be disingenuous to pretend domestic politics was not a factor.

Recognition of a Palestinian state has long been a Labour manifesto promise. Back in 2014, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader at the time, backed a non-binding motion to do so in the Commons.

Now in government, this is undeniably a significant shift in British foreign policy.

The decision came after mounting calls from Labour MPs, with more than half the parliamentary party signing a letter demanding the government immediately recognise a Palestinian state.

Behind the scenes, several cabinet ministers had also been pushing for recognition, with several of them at risk of losing their seats because of anger over Gaza.

"I would not underestimate the pressure MPs are getting, anywhere there is a university town, or a large Muslim population, or both," one Labour MP told the BBC.

"There is a small segment of people for whom this is central to their sense of identity."

There was also international pressure. The UK's announcement came shortly after France became the first of the G7 group of the world's richest countries to say it would recognise a Palestinian state at September's UN General Assembly.

Since then, Australia and Canada have made similar announcements.

Before the election, Sir Keir promised to lead a Labour Party "no longer in thrall to gesture politics".

Critics of this move argue recognition is just that; a symbolic move that will have little impact on the ground in Gaza.

One sceptical Labour MP said it was a "nice political gesture that doesn't butter any parsnips."

The Conservatives branded the move "political posturing", arguing it won't bring Israeli hostages home or deliver a ceasefire.

Others go much further, pointing to the fact the government placed conditions on Israel but not on Hamas.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it "rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism".

The UK's Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, called for the government to pause its decision. "It is a reward for terrorism, while the hostages remain in chains, and has been celebrated by Hamas as 'one of the fruits of 7th October'," he said.

Sources in government strongly deny the move is symbolic. They point to the first statement from Arab nations calling for Hamas to disarm and end its rule of Gaza as evidence that British recognition can shift the dial in the Middle East.

But it also puts the UK at odds with the US.

During his state visit to the UK, President Donald Trump, who is strongly opposed to recognising a Palestinian state, acknowledged he had a "disagreement" with Sir Keir on the issue.

Back at home, there is no doubt among Labour MPs that the party's position on Gaza has driven some Labour voters towards the Green Party and pro-Gaza independent candidates.

"We have been behind the curve," said one Labour MP who wants the government to go further.

"I think this is a step in the right direction," they added, but noted the majority of UN member states have long recognised a Palestinian state.

"It shows we're late," they said. "But better late than never."

Labour's difficulties over the war in Gaza began long before it came to power. In the eyes of many Muslim voters, Sir Keir's original sin was in a 2023 LBC interview shortly after the 7 October Hamas attacks, when he appeared to say Israel had the "right" to cut off water and energy to Gaza.

Then a month into the conflict, several shadow ministers resigned and 56 of his MPs rebelled over Sir Keir's refusal to back a vote for an immediate ceasefire.

Three months later in February 2024 the party changed from supporting a "humanitarian pause" to an "immediate ceasefire".

Party strategists believe some voters are still punishing them for these initial positions, and have not given them credit for the changes since then.

Officials in Downing Street argue that within a year of coming to power, Labour has driven a major shift in British policy in the Middle East. Ministers point to the fact the government has now suspended some arms export licences to Israel, sanctioned some Israeli ministers, and moved to recognise a Palestinian state.

But there is little sense this will appease the anger on Labour's backbenchers about the situation in Gaza, nor the calls for the government to go further.

Dr Simon Opher, a Labour MP blocked by Israel from entering the country this week, said the government had tried to use the threat of recognition as leverage to achieve a ceasefire but it had not worked.

"Now we have to very categorically opt out of any arms deals with Israel, stop any cooperation, and we need to think about proper trade sanctions. We still do quite a lot of trade with Israel so that will be the next logical step."

However, other Labour MPs fear the move panders to the party's left, and has not achieved anything.

"It was the final diplomatic card we had to play," one said. "You only get to do this once and actually this is not going to catalyse a peace process but drive Israelis away from it."

Others said it would please the party's members and core supporters, but was not a factor in those constituencies that would decide the next election.

"It feeds into the narrative that the government cares more about Palestinian flags than Union flags," another Labour MP said.

"It gives the impression we care more about borders in the Middle East than the borders at Dover."

So will it make a difference to Labour's political fortunes? Few in government think so.

Some hope it might help navigate the party's conference when activists largely supportive of the Palestinian cause flock to Liverpool next week.

But, as one senior aide said, the question will be whether the situation on the ground in Gaza has changed come election time.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

The Pentagon has told journalists they must agree not to disclose unauthorised information or else risk losing access to the building.

The change is among a number of new restrictions, which also seek to impose limits on the movement of journalists within the facility, which is home to the Department of War, formerly known as the Department of Defense.

It follows a series of leaks in recent months.

Pete Hegseth, who was recently given the new title of Secretary of War, said on social media: "The 'press' does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home."

The new restrictions were set out in a briefing note sent to members of the press, which they will be required to sign in order to maintain their Pentagon press credentials.

The department said it "remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust".

But it added: "DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorising official before it is released, even if it is unclassified".

It asks signatories to acknowledge that determinations on press credentials for the building "may be based on the unauthorised access, attempted unauthorised access, or unauthorised disclosure" of classified national security information, or information designated as controlled unclassified information.

"The guidelines in the memo provided to credentialed resident media at the Pentagon reaffirms the standards that are already in line with every other military base in the country," said Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell in a statement. "These are basic, common-sense guidelines to protect sensitive information as well as the protection of national security and the safety of all who work at the Pentagon."

Hegseth has previously come under scrutiny for his own handling of sensitive information after it was revealed he shared details about the bombing of Yemen on a group chat that included a reporter in March. Former national security advisor Michael Waltz, who was recently confirmed as the US's ambassador to the UN, had invited the journalist to the chat inadvertently.

The administration reacted angrily in June when a leaked intelligence report appeared to contradict statements it had made about the damage caused by US strikes on Iran's nuclear programme.

I have some in my cupboard. And I'm far from alone - creatine has become the supplement of choice for millions.

Originally known for enhancing the performance of bodybuilders and athletes in the 1990s, this white powder is now entering the spice cupboards (well, that's where I store mine) of women in their 40s.

It's arguably one of the world's most researched supplements. Thousands of studies have been carried out over the past few decades evaluating its ability to increase muscle mass and overall strength.

"Creatine has become so big, you feel that if you are not using it, you are kind of losing out," says Dr Henry Chung, a lecturer in sport and exercise science at the University of Essex. "It's moved from elite sport into the mainstream. It's not about whether to take it anymore, it's about when to take it - before or after exercise? Everyday? How much?

"In which form is best? Powder, tablets, gummies?"

Creatine is a naturally occurring compound which is stored in our muscles, and helps our cells produce energy. It is a vital component in the ATP-CP system, the fastest, most powerful energy system in our bodies.

It fuels the first 10-20 seconds in high intensity workouts - giving that quick, powerful burst of energy. From lifting weights to sprinting round the track, research suggests creatine supplementation can help improve performance.

And away from the gym, there is a growing, but still relatively limited, body of evidence to suggest it can also help with our short-term memory, mood and focus.

So, can this supplement improve our ability to think, remember and respond?

And for me, and many others, will it help clear our brain fog, a catch-all term that describes an inability to think clearly, string a sentence together, and remember the simplest of things?

For some people with serious post-viral conditions, brain fog can be longer term and potentially life-changing. If you have concerns, it is best to seek medical help.

For most, brain fog is usually temporary and can happen because of an illness or certain types of medical treatment. For millions of women, it can be a symptom of the perimenopause, due to hormonal fluctuations.

Katie Mansell believes creatine has helped in many parts of her life. The 46-year-old from Merseyside lifts weights, runs 30-40 miles a week, has a full-on job as the chief financial officer of a software company, and a busy home life with a teenage son and two dogs.

"A few months ago, I was out of sorts. I was finding training really hard work and I was struggling to focus on things," she says.

"It was my friend who recommended it - she said it was a game changer."

Katie, who is also perimenopausal, started taking six grams of creatine a day three months ago, and is beginning to feel a difference. Her mood feels a bit lighter, she can lift heavier weights and the fog that had descended on her brain has started to lift.

"I've got more motivation to do things, especially when it comes to training. I feel stronger when I'm lifting and bouldering, and I can also think more clearly."

Katie does caveat this - she's also on magnesium supplements and has started on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but she's confident that creatine is making an impact and will continue with her daily dose.

There are others who believe it's made little difference and there is divided opinion on whether the majority of us get the amount of creatine we need through our diets. Katie, who is a vegetarian, says she was probably missing out. While it's understood our bodies produce one gram of it naturally, the rest comes from high-protein food like meat and fish.

The supplement's impact on male athletes has been documented since the early 1990s but, as with a lot of scientific research, female biology was missing from the equation.

"I used to have to guess what my female athletes needed," explains Dr Susan Kleiner, a high-performance nutritionist from the US state of Washington. "All the research was based on men."

It wasn't until a few years ago that women's hormonal fluctuations were taken into account, says Dr Kleiner, an adviser on the board of Creatine Health, a global initiative set up to promote research on the supplement. "And that was when scientists started to see a real impact in other parts of the body."

Instead of just concentrating on how creatine interacts with our muscles in a sport setting, scientists have begun to discover how it could potentially affect reproductive health, bone health and brain function - all of which can be affected during perimenopause, she explains.

So does that mean that creatine can help my brain fog?

"That's an interesting thought," says Professor Emeritus Trevor McMorris. "It might do."

Having been in the field for more than 40 years, he has carried out many studies into creatine supplementation.

He says perimenopausal brain fog could have a similar impact to sleep deprivation, something he has researched extensively, finding that high doses of creatine could mitigate the effects of too little sleep.

When people use the supplement, the brain may - like other muscles in the body - increase its stores of creatine. This helps produce more energy, which could help improve memory and the ability to process information.

But Prof McMorris say it won't work for everyone. His most recent research suggests people need to be under a level of stress - for example, being sleep deprived or not having enough creatine in their diet - for it to make a difference.

So, in short, when it comes to helping me with my brain fog - maybe - there's potential. The experts I have spoken to believe it's an "an exciting time" in this line of research, but that more studies are needed.

Dietician Lucy Upton warns that we could start to see more side effects to creatine use because of the supplement's surge in popularity.

"While there is extensive research, that has been in a controlled environment," she says. "Now we need to think about the variation of body sizes, doses and any pre-existing conditions."

Currently, known side effects are the risk of stomach upset, muscle cramps and bloating. People with conditions affecting their kidneys should consult a doctor before taking it.

While Dr Chung sees no harm in healthy adults "trying it out", he also says results tend to be "minimal gains", adding that "it is not, by any means, a wonder drug".

As for me, I started taking the creatine in my cupboard but stopped after a month (blame it on the brain fog).

Perhaps I'll give it another try.