The Sagrada Família has become the tallest church in the world, after workers placed the first part of a cross at the top of its central tower.

Now measuring 162.91 metres tall, the Spanish basilica has officially pipped the record from the Ulm Minster in Germany, which has held the crown since 1890.

Designed by acclaimed architect Antoni Gaudí, the place of worship has been under construction in the centre of Barcelona for more than a century, with the main building due to be completed next year.

The central Tower of Jesus Christ will grow with the addition of the rest of the cross over the next few months, eventually standing at 172 metres tall.

The first stone of the Sagrada Família was placed in 1882, with up-and-coming architect Gaudí taking over the project the following year.

He transformed the original designs for the basilica into a far more ambitious proposal, which was initially funded by donations from repentant worshippers.

At the time of his unexpected death in 1926, just one of the planned 18 towers had been built.

In the years following, the construction of the architectural marvel was managed by the Sagrada Família foundation, and funded by contributions from tourists, visitors and private donors.

In addition to the death of its primary architect, the basilica has hit a number of roadblocks throughout its almost 150-year construction.

During the Spanish Civil War, Catalan anarchists set fire to the crypt, destroying plans and plaster models created by Gaudí that would guide future construction.

Most recently, the Covid-19 pandemic saw construction on the building halted, with members of the foundation attributing the pause to a lack of tourism, and the subsequent drop in funding for the project.

In September this year, Sagrada Família General Director Xavier Martínez told the Associated Press that the Tower of Jesus Christ would be completed in 2026, to coincide with the centenary of Gaudí's death.

The foundation will hold a series of events to commemorate the architect, who is buried in the church's crypt.

Work on decorative details, sculptures and a stairway leading to the building's main entrance is expected to continue over the next decade.

In a wood on the edge of St Petersburg they're reading out a list of names.

Each name is a victim of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's Great Terror.

In this part of Russia there are thousands of names to be read. Thousands of lives to remember on Russia's annual Remembrance Day for Victims of Political Repression.

Buried in the Levashovo Wasteland are believed to be at least 20,000 people - possibly as many as 45,000 - who were denounced, shot and disposed of in mass graves; individuals, as well as whole families destroyed in the dictator's purge in the 1930s.

Nailed to the trunks of pine trees are portraits of the executed. Standing here you can feel the ghosts of Russia's past.

But what of the present?

Today, Russian authorities speak less about Stalin's crimes against his own people, preferring to portray the dictator as a victorious wartime leader.

What's more, in recent years a string of repressive laws has been adopted here to punish dissent and silence criticism of the Kremlin and of Russia's war in Ukraine.

Kremlin critics might not be denounced as "enemies of the people" like under Stalin. But increasingly they are being designated "foreign agents".

The authorities claim the labelling helps to protect Russia from external threats.

More than three and a half years after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities have two main objectives: victory abroad and conformity at home.

Anyone here who publicly challenges, questions or even hints they doubt the official narrative that, in this war Russia is in the right, risks becoming a target.

At Leninsky District Courthouse, the stairwell outside Courtroom 11 is packed with journalists. There is barely room to move.

I get talking to Irina. Her daughter Diana is on her way here in a police car for a court appearance.

"This must be frightening for you," I say.

Irina nods.

"I never thought anything like this could happen," says Irina softly. "You can't imagine it. Until it happens to you."

Minutes later, 18-year-old Diana Loginova arrives in the building guarded by three police officers. She hugs her mother and is taken into court.

Diana has already spent 13 days in jail for "organising a mass public gathering of citizens resulting in a violation of public order".

But the charges keep coming.

The "mass gathering" was an improvised street concert which the authorities claim obstructed pedestrian access to a Metro station.

Diana Loginova is a music student and, under the name Naoko, lead singer with the band Stoptime.

On the streets of St Petersburg, Stoptime have been performing songs by exiled Russian artists like Noize MC and Monetochka, singer-songwriters fiercely critical of the Kremlin and of Russia's war in Ukraine.

Many of these prominent musicians, now abroad, have been officially designated foreign agents by Russian authorities.

Videos posted online show that Stoptime's street concerts have been attracting quite a crowd, with dozens of mainly young people singing along and dancing to the music.

Whilst it is not forbidden in Russia to sing or play songs by foreign agents, in May a Russian court banned Noize MC's track Swan Lake Cooperative, claiming it contained "propaganda for the violent change of the constitutional order".

Swan Lake is seen by many as a symbol of political change in Russia.

In the USSR, Soviet TV often showed the ballet following the death of Soviet leaders, and it was back on Soviet TV screens in 1991 during the failed coup by communist hardliners. Lake (Ozero in Russian) is also the name of a dacha co-operative widely associated with President Putin's inner circle.

A video clip of Stoptime performing the song went viral recently on social media.

Diana Loginova was detained on 15 October. Police also arrested her boyfriend, guitarist Alexander Orlov, and drummer, Vladislav Leontyev.

The three band members were sentenced to between 12 and 13 days behind bars.

In Courtroom 11 Diana is facing an additional charge: discrediting the Russian armed forces. It relates to one of the songs she sang: You're a Soldier by ("foreign agent") Monetochka.

"You're a soldier," begins the chorus.

"And whatever war you are fighting,

"I'm sorry, I'll be on the other side."

After a brief hearing the judge finds Diana guilty of discrediting Russia's army and fines her 30,000 roubles (£285).

But she is not free to go. The police take Diana back to the police station and prepare more charges.

The next day she and her boyfriend Alexander are brought to Smolninsky District Court. I manage to have a word with them before they enter the courtroom.

"I'm very pleased, and it's important, that people have been supporting us, that many people are on our side, on the side of truth," Diana tells me.

"I'm surprised by how things have been exaggerated. We've been accused of lots of things we didn't do. All we were doing was bringing the music we like to a mass audience. The power of music is very important. What's happening now proves that."

"I think it's not the words, it's the music that is most important," guitarist Alexander Orlov tells me. "Music says everything for people. It always has."

Alexander reveals he proposed to Diana when the police van they were being transported in stopped at a petrol station.

"I made a ring out of a tissue," he tells me. "I had time to get on my knees, and she said yes."

"We hope we'll be back home soon," says Diana. "That's what we're dreaming of most."

They won't be going home yet. At this latest court hearing the judge sends Diana and Alexander back to jail for another 13 days for more public order offences.

Civil society in Russia is under intense pressure. Yet supporters of Diana Loginova and Stoptime are trying to make their voices heard.

"I was on the street when Diana was singing and people were singing along so beautifully," says Alla outside the courthouse. "For me it was important to be here to support Diana and show her some people do care. This should not be happening."

To another of Diana's supporters I suggest that, in Russia now, displaying solidarity for anyone accused of discrediting the Russian army requires a degree of courage.

"It's people like Diana who are the brave ones," says Sasha. "We're cowards. Some people are heroes. Others just follow behind."

"Some people [in Russia] are scared," continues Sasha. "But others here do support the authorities and what's going on. Unfortunately, I know people like this. It came as a blow when I discovered that people I've been friends with for 40 years support what's happening. For years they've been watching Russian TV. I haven't."

In the Urals city of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Mikhailov expressed his solidarity through music. The street musician performed songs in support of Diana Loginova. He was detained and jailed for 14 days for "petty hooliganism".

Despite the crackdown, young street musicians in St Petersburg continue to perform music by artists labelled foreign agents by Russian authorities.

It's a chilly autumn evening. But passers-by have stopped to listen to a teenage band outside a St Petersburg Metro station. Among the songs they're performing are compositions by "foreign agents" Noize MC and Morgenshtern.

Suddenly the police turn up. The concert is over.

I look on as three band members are taken away in a police car.

I go to meet someone else in St Petersburg accused of "discreditation".

Ludmila Vasilyeva, 84, was born two months before Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union.

She survived the Nazi siege of Leningrad (then the name for St Petersburg) and has carried with her all her life how devastating war can be.

So, when Vladimir Putin ordered a mass invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ludmila was deeply shocked.

Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of Russia's "special military operation", Ludmila went on to the street to express her anti-war stance.

"I wrote on my placard: 'People! Let's stop the war. We bear responsibility for peace on Planet Earth!'"

Following her personal protest Ludmila received a letter from the police instructing her to report to the police station.

"They told me that I had discredited our soldiers. How? By calling for peace? I let them know that everything I'd wanted to say I'd already made quite clear on my placard and that I wouldn't be going down to the station. They threatened to take me to court. And in the end that's what they did."

Ludmila was fined 10,000 roubles (£95) for "discrediting the Russian armed forces".

She has no regrets and seemingly, despite the growing repression around her, no fear.

"Why should I be scared?" Ludmila asks me. "Of what and of whom should I be frightened? I'm not scared of anyone. I speak the truth. And they know that."

She believes that increasing authoritarianism stems from those in power fearing the public.

"People are scared. But [the authorities] are more scared. That's why they're tightening the screws."

Ludmila Vasilyeva's outspokenness is an exception, not the rule. Today few Russians engage in public protest. I ask Ludmila why that is: is it fear, indifference, or because of support for the authorities?

"Most people are focused on their own lives, on just surviving," Ludmila replies.

But she claims that when she speaks her mind publicly many people agree with her.

"When I go to the shops, I always strike up a conversation. No one has ever sneaked on me or put in a complaint about me.

"Once I was saying something down at the post office. Someone turned to me and said: 'Quiet, keep it down.' I replied: 'Why should I be quiet? What I'm saying, isn't it the truth? Truth must be spoken loudly.'"

Not everyone agrees.

"When I was standing with my placard and talking to a policeman, a man in his 50s came up to us. He leant forward and said: 'Just strangle her.'"

Five people have been charged in connection with the 2023 overdose death of Robert De Niro's grandson and two other 19 year olds.

New York authorities accuse the suspects, Bruce Epperson, Eddie Barreto, Grant McIver, John Nicolas, and Roy Nicolas, of running a fentanyl distribution network that sold counterfeit prescription opioid pills through social media to teenagers and young adults in the city.

Authorities link the network to the overdose deaths of Leandro De Niro-Rodriguez, Akira Stein - daughter of Blondie co-founder Chris Stein - and a third unnamed victim.

The five are each charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute.

"Through their alleged actions, these defendants left behind a trail of irreversible loss that cut short the lives of three teenagers who held boundless potential and who had already made profound, immeasurable impacts on those who knew them," said Homeland Security Investigations New York special agent in charge Ricky Patel in a statement on Thursday.

Prosecutors allege the five used social media and encrypted messaging apps to sell thousands fentanyl-laced pills in New York between January and July 2023.

They allege that over that summer, the drugs they sold led to at least three deaths.

Stein was found dead 30 May after taking fentanyl-laced pills she allegedly purchased from John and Roy Nicolas. The unnamed victim, who died 13 June, allegedly purchased pills through an intermediary from Mr McIver.

Authorities say De Niro-Rodriguez, who died 2 July, got pills from a dealer who allegedly obtained them from Mr McIver, Mr Epperson, and Mr Barreto.

Separatedly in 2023, a woman was arrested for allegedly selling De Niro-Rodriguez three counterfeit oxycodone pills containing fentanyl - the drugs believed to have led to his death - and tablets of Xanax.

In a statement after the death of his grandson, Academy-Award winner De Niro said he was "deeply distressed" by the passing of his "beloved grandson", who was the only child of his daughter Drena.

In a statement on Instagram on Thursday, Chris Stein noted the arrests in his daughter's case and thanked officials "for this hope of some justice for her".

If found guilty, the charges carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison, officials said.

Shirley Chung was just a year old when she was adopted by a US family in 1966.

Born in South Korea, her birthfather was a member of the American military, who returned home soon after Shirley was born. Unable to cope, her birth mother placed her in an orphanage in the South Korean capital, Seoul.

"He abandoned us, is the nicest way I can put it," says Shirley, now 61.

After around a year, Shirley was adopted by a US couple, who took her back to Texas.

Shirley grew up living a life similar to that of many young Americans. She went to school, got her driving licence and worked as a bartender.

"I moved and breathed and got in trouble like many teenage Americans of the 80s. I'm a child of the 80s," Shirley says.

Shirley had children, got married and became a piano teacher. Life carried on for decades with no reason to doubt her American identity.

But then in 2012, her world came crashing down.

She lost her Social Security card and needed a replacement. But when she went to her local Social Security office, Shirley was told she needed to prove her status in the country. Eventually she found out she did not have US citizenship.

"I had a little mental breakdown after finding out I wasn't a citizen," she says.

Shirley is not alone. Estimates of how many American adoptees lack citizenship range from 18,000 to 75,000. Some intercountry adoptees may not even know they lack US citizenship.

Dozens of adoptees have been deported to their countries of birth in recent years, according to the Adoptee Rights Law Center. A man born in South Korea and adopted as a child by an American family - only to be deported to his country of birth because of a criminal record - took his own life in 2017.

The reasons why so many US adoptees do not have citizenship are varied. Shirley blames her parents for failing to finalise the correct paperwork when she came to the US. She also blames the school system and the government for not highlighting that she did not have citizenship.

"I blame all the adults in my life that literally just dropped the ball and said: 'She's here in America now, she's going to be fine.'"

"Well, am I? Am I going to be fine?"

Another woman, who requested anonymity for fear of attracting the attention of authorities, was adopted by an American couple from Iran in 1973 when she was two years old.

Growing up in the US Midwest, she encountered some racism but generally had a happy upbringing.

"I settled into my life, always understanding that I was an American citizen. That's what I was told. I still believe that today," she says.

But that changed when she tried to get a passport at the age of 38 and discovered immigration authorities had lost critical documents that supported her claim to citizenship.

This has further complicated her feelings surrounding identity.

"I personally don't categorise myself as an immigrant. I didn't come here as an immigrant with a second language, a different culture, family members, ties to a country that I was born in… my culture was erased," she says.

"You are told that you have these rights as an American - to vote and to participate in democracy, to work, to go to school, to raise your family, to have freedoms - all these things that Americans have.

"And then all of a sudden they started pushing us into a category of immigrants, simply because they cut us from legislation. We should have all equally had citizenship rights because that was promised through adoption policies."

For decades, intercountry adoptions approved by courts and government agencies did not automatically guarantee US citizenship. Adoptive parents sometimes failed to secure legal status or naturalised citizenship for their children.

The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 made some headway in rectifying this, granting automatic citizenship to international adoptees. But the law only covered future adoptees or those born after February 1983. Those who arrived before then were not granted citizenship, leaving tens of thousands in limbo.

Advocates have been pushing for Congress to remove the age cut-off but these bills have failed to make it past the House.

Some, like Debbie Principe, whose two adopted children have special needs, have spent decades trying to secure citizenship for their dependents.

She adopted two children from an orphanage in Romania in the 1990s after watching them on Shame of a Nation - a documentary about the neglect of children in orphanages following the 1989 Romanian Revolution, that sent shockwaves around the world when it aired.

The most recent rejection of citizenship came in May, and was followed by a notice stating that if the decision was not appealed in 30 days, she would have to turn in her daughter to Homeland Security, she said.

"We'll just be lucky if they don't get picked up and deported to another country that isn't even their country of origin," Ms Principe said.

Those fears for adoptees and their families have risen even further since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, with a vow to remove "promptly all aliens who enter or remain in violation of federal law".

Last month, the Trump administration said "two million illegal aliens have left the United States in less than 250 days, including an estimated 1.6 million who have voluntarily self-deported and more than 400,000 deportations".

While many Americans support deportations of illegal migrants, there has been uproar over some incidents.

In one case, 238 Venezuelans were deported by the US to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. They were accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang despite most of them having no criminal records.

Last month, US officials detained 475 people - more than 300 of them South Korean nationals - who they said were working illegally at Hyundai's battery facility, one of the largest foreign investment projects in Georgia. The workers were taken away in handcuffs and chains to be detained, sparking outrage in their home country.

Adoptee rights groups say they have been flooded with requests for help since Trump's return and some adoptees have gone into hiding.

"When the election results came in, it started to really cascade with requests for help," said Greg Luce, an attorney and founder of the Adoptee Rights Law Center, adding he's had more than 275 requests for help.

The adoptee who arrived from Iran in the 1970s said she has started avoiding certain areas, like her local Iranian supermarket, and shares an app with her friends so they always have access to her location, in case she is "swept up".

"At the end of the day, they don't care about your back story. They don't care that you're legally here and it's just a paperwork error. I always tell people this one single piece of paper has essentially just ruined my life," she said.

"As far as I'm concerned right now, I feel stateless."

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Despite adoptees being left in limbo for decades, Emily Howe, a civil and human rights attorney who has worked with adoptees across the US, believes it is just a case of political will that should unite people from across the political spectrum.

"It should be a straightforward fix: adopted children should be equal to their biological siblings of parents who were US citizens at the time of birth," Ms Howe said.

"The applicants have two, three, or four US citizen parents, and are now in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. We're talking about babies and toddlers who were shipped overseas through no fault of their own and lawfully admitted under US policy," she added.

"These are people who literally were promised that they were going to be Americans when they were two years old."

Shirley wishes she could get the US president into a room, so she and others like her could explain their stories.

"I would ask him to please have some compassion. We're not illegal aliens," she said.

"We were put on planes as little itty-bitty babies. Just please hear our story and please follow through with the promise that America gave each one of the babies that got on those planes: American citizenship."

Thousands of people displaced by ethnic clashes in India's north-eastern state of Manipur two years ago now face an uncertain future, as the government plans to shut down all temporary relief camps by December.

The violence, which erupted in May 2023 between the majority Meitei and the indigenous Kuki communities, was the worst the region had witnessed in decades.

It started after protests by the largely Christian Kuki community against the Meiteis, mostly Hindus, who were demanding official tribal status that would grant them access to the same government benefits and job quotas as other tribes, including Kukis.

At least 260 people were killed in the clashes and around 60,000 displaced people have since been living in temporary shelters.

Over the past two years, the government has made repeated promises to rehabilitate the displaced, but little has changed on the ground. Many say their lives remain in a limbo - effectively homeless and without a steady source of income.

Anxieties grew further in July when the state's then Chief Secretary Prashant Singh announced that all relief camps would be shut down by December and its residents would be resettled.

He added that those unable to return to their homes would be relocated to pre-fabricated housing units.

The government, however, did not clarify where these units would be - whether near the relief camps or near displaced people's original homes - worsening their concerns about future.

Uncertainty grew in September when Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his first visit to Manipur since the violence began, announced that 7,000 new homes would be built to resettle the displaced in "appropriate locations" without giving any other details.

On the ground, Manipur remains sharply divided: the Meiteis inhabit the Imphal Valley, while the Kukis live in the surrounding hill districts; and security forces continue to patrol the buffer zones that separate the two communities.

A security official deployed in the area told BBC Hindi that his mandate was to "ensure that Meiteis and Kukis remain in their respective areas and do not mix".

Experts say resettling people in their original neighbourhoods is crucial to prevent the violence from redrawing Manipur's social map.

"This is not good for a secular, democratic India. Resettling them in their original homes is most critical," said RK Nimai Singh, former secretary to the Manipur governor.

He added that many displaced people feared that if they left the relief camps and moved into temporary housing, they might never be able to return to their homes.

It's a thought that haunts Hatnu Haokip. For her, home means only one place - Imphal valley - and she yearns to go back.

"But that can't happen because our village is now surrounded by Meitei people," said the 22-year-old who is now living in a relief camp in the hilly Churachandpur region

Ms Haokip added that she would feel safer if Kuki leaders were given autonomy to set up a separate federally-administered territory for the community.

This sentiment was echoed by several other Kukis, who also feel apprehensive of returning to their homes.

On the other hand, most Meiteis BBC Hindi spoke to said they wanted to go back home.

Irom Abung, who once ran a water supply business in Churachandpur, now lives in a relief camp near a buffer zone.

His house was damaged during the violence, but Mr Abung says he will never give up on the place he once called home.

"My land remains. I will never sell it because I know I will return one day," he said. "Efforts must be made to bridge the gap between our two communities so people can go back to their lives."

The unease, coupled with uncertainty over where the new homes will be built, has raised doubts over whether the government would be able to close all relief camps by December.

Government officials, however, insist that the resettlement plan is on track.

"From about 290 camps initially, we've brought the number down to around 260," a senior Manipur government official said.

"Eventually, we want to resettle people in the areas from where they fled, once they feel safe to return."

The official added that while they understood people's concerns, it was also in the state's interest for them to return home - otherwise, the divisions would only grow deeper.

As tens of thousands of people continue to live in relief camps, many complain about not getting the facilities the government promised them.

Nemhoichong Lhungdim, a single mother, said her 11-year-old son had suffered a debilitating eye injury a few months back and has lost sight in one eye.

After government doctors failed to help, she borrowed money to take him to a private hospital, but was unable to afford the treatment.

"I was told it would cost about 300,000 rupees ($3,400; £2,600). I don't have that kind of money," she said.

Ms Lhungdim says the government sometimes organises health camps, but they have never treated her son. BBC Hindi has reached out to officials for a response.

Inside the camps, residents say prolonged displacement and uncertainty are also taking a toll on people's mental health.

Salam Monika, 25, says her uncle took his own life last year after being driven to despair by a lack of livelihood opportunities. She says the family could not access medical help.

"Some mental health workers visited our camp a few times since 2023, but this year, they haven't come at all," she said.

BBC Hindi has reached out to the government for comment.

Meanwhile, those moved from camps into temporary housing say that while they now have a roof over their heads, they still struggle to make ends meet as livelihood remains a concern.

Chingakham Radha, one of the newly resettled residents, said she learned to make crochet dolls while living in the camp and now earns a small income from selling them. "The money is very little, just enough to get by," she said.

Before the conflict, Ms Radha was a homemaker and her husband worked as a labourer. They were not wealthy, but had a happy life.

Thinking about those days, Ms Radha says life has become uncertain now.

"Some days my husband finds work, but other times weeks go by without any work," she said. "I want to return home to Churachandpur, but those hopes are fading with time."

Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, X and Facebook.

The government has been urged to get a grip on long A&E waits with campaigners saying it is the rot eating away at the heart of the NHS.

The plea by Age UK comes as it publishes a report detailing "heartbreaking" stories of how older people are suffering, spending hours in corridors and side-rooms.

It highlights cases of people being left in their own excrement, having blood transfusions and even dying in these make-shift treatment areas.

And it said older people were much more likely to experience long waits, with data showing one in three over 90s faced 12-hour waits at A&E in England last year.

The government said the situation was unacceptable, but added it was taking action.

The Age UK report said while 12-hour waits were once virtually unheard of, they had now become the norm in too many places.

It highlighted the case of an 86-year-old who was left in a disused corridor for 36 hours.

Another man, who had soiled himself, was left in his own excrement for 20 hours, while others suffered the indignity of having to use bedpans in corridors.

Susan, 79, from south London, is one of those who has experienced a long wait, according to the Age UK report.

She said it took 22 hours for a bed to be found for her after she arrived at hospital having had a heart attack.

She spent a large part of her wait on a couch in a curtained-off area near A&E where there was no privacy. She believes she heard two people dying on couches nearby.

Regarding one of the deaths, she said: "I was next to a man who was clearly unwell. He was alone for some time, then his wife was brought in. They whispered as they had little privacy. Then, after a long silence, she was led away, crying. I'm certain he died. And he died right next to me."

Risky

The report pointed to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from NHS England which showed there were more than 1.7 million 12-hour waits in 2024-25 at major hospitals – around one in 10 of those who attended A&Es.

Two thirds of them were experienced by people aged over 60.

The report said as well as being horrible, long waits were risky.

Age UK director Caroline Abrahams said it was a "crisis hiding in plain sight" and that the government should take immediate action.

"No-one should have to spend their final days in a hospital corridor where it's impossible for staff to provide good, compassionate care.

"As we head into winter, we fear that an already difficult situation will get worse.

"Long waits are like a rot eating away at the heart of the NHS, undermining public trust."

Age UK said a major cause of the problem was the lack of available support in the community, which meant hospitals could not discharge patients who are medically-fit to leave wards. That results in a shortage of beds available for new patients.

It called for a renewed effort and drive to tackle this.

RCN general secretary Prof Nicola Ranger said the problems were a "moral stain" on the health service.

"No elderly or vulnerable person should be forced to endure these conditions.

"Overstretched and understaffed nursing teams work hard every day to deliver the best care, but they face an impossible task."

Health minister Karin Smyth said: "No one should receive care in a corridor - it's unacceptable, undignified and we are determined to end it."

She said the government was investing more money in the NHS and detailed data on corridor care would soon be published to hold the system to account.

"To tackle a problem you've got to be honest about it," she added.

Pornhub says the number of UK visitors to its website is down 77% compared with July, when more rigorous age checks for sexually explicit sites were introduced under the Online Safety Act.

It claims sites that are ignoring the new requirements are benefiting.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify Pornhub's claim - however, data from Google shows searches for the site have decreased by almost half since the law came into effect.

This could be a consequence of people reducing their porn use but could also be partly explained by people visiting the site through alternative means such as a VPN, which masks a user's location.

Pornhub is the most visited porn site in the world - and the 19th most visited on the entire web, according to data from Similarweb.

Under the OSA, anyone accessing such websites in the UK now has to prove they are over 18 with age checks such as facial identification.

The firm's claim is the latest indication that people in the UK are changing how they use the internet since the Online Safety Act came into effect.

According to Ofcom, visits to pornography sites in general in the UK have reduced by almost a third in the three months since 25 July.

The regulator said the new law was fulfilling its primary purpose of stopping children from being able to "easily stumble across porn without searching for it".

"Our new rules end the era of an age-blind internet, when many sites and apps have undertaken no meaningful checks to see if children were using their services," the watchdog said.

Ofcom told the BBC it believed the number of people using VPNs for general use reached 1.5 million daily in July, after the law came in, but has since decreased to around one million.

Meanwhile, research by Cybernews counted more than 10.7 million downloads of VPN apps in the UK from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store across 2025.

"It is likely that people not wanting to verify their age or identity to access sexual content, for example because of privacy concerns, are using VPNs to get around this," Dr Hanne Stegeman from the University of Exeter told the BBC.

"As the location of website visitors are usually determined through IP addresses, it could be that those figures are inaccurate when a portion of visitors are using VPNs."

And Cybernews information security researcher Aras Nazarovas told the BBC people in the UK "can and do" use VPNs.

"After age checks kicked in, VPN apps jumped to the top of the UK App Store, and at least one provider saw a 1,800% surge in downloads," he said.

"So part of Pornhub's 'missing' UK audience hasn't vanished - it's being reclassified as non‑UK traffic."

But he said he believed "the rest" was indeed "users shifting to sites that don't require age checks".

'Exponential growth'

Alex Kekesi, an executive at Pornhub's parent company Aylo, told the BBC the new rules were unenforceable.

She said Ofcom faced an "insurmountable task" trying to get an estimated 240,000 adult platforms - visited by eight million users per month in the UK - to follow the rules.

This compares with the regulator taking action against fewer than 70 sites for non-compliance.

Ofcom says it prioritises sites to be investigated based on how risky they are and their number of users.

And Ms Kekesi claimed some pornographic sites have benefited from flouting the rules. The BBC has not independently verified this.

"There are a number of sites whose traffic has grown exponentially, and these are sites that are not complying," she said.

Ms Kekesi also has concerns about the content on some of these sites.

She told the BBC of one which seemed to encourage users to search for content featuring girls below the age of consent.

Aylo says it has shared details of this and other sites with Ofcom.

The regulator has defended the way it enforces the new rules, saying increasing traffic to sites can be one factor that triggers an investigation.

"Sites that don't comply and put children at risk can expect to face enforcement action," it told BBC News.

Ofcom's data shows that the top 10 most popular sites all have age assurance deployed. These sites represent a quarter of all visits to adult sites from across the UK.

It adds that over three quarters of daily traffic to the top 100 most popular sites are going to sites that have age assurance.

The government has also defended the regulator, and said protecting children online was a "top priority" for ministers.

"Where evidence shows further intervention is needed to protect children, we will not hesitate to act," it added in a statement.

Should devices do the checks?

Ms Kekesi spoke to the BBC while in the UK for a meeting with Ofcom and government officials, where she has been making Pornhub's case that age checks should be done at device level, rather than by individual websites.

She said the UK stands out in having persuaded the platform to introduce age checks.

A number of jurisdictions have sought to compel Pornhub to check its users' ages, but the response of the site has been to block users rather than comply.

Ms Kekesi said the UK was different because it allowed sites to offer a range of different solutions, meaning that Pornhub could use methods - such as email-based checks - which didn't require collecting biometric data.

She denied that the threat of hefty fines for non-compliance had been the primary motive for complying, pointing to the contrast with France - its second biggest market - where it had cut off access rather than agreeing to what regulators demanded.

Ian Corby of the Age Verification Providers Association rejected calls for a switch to device-based verification.

But he added the group shared a desire for a "level playing field" meaning age checks should be "robust, not superficial or fake".

Chelsea Jarvie, a cybersecurity company founder who has been researching methods of age assurance for a PhD at Strathclyde University, told the BBC both approaches to age checks would be needed - with neither age verification on platforms nor devices being a "silver bullet".

"For somebody to truly be safe online we need different layers of controls throughout their browsing journey," she said.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

Spoiler warning: This article reveals details from the eighth episode of The Celebrity Traitors

Parting may have been sweet sorrow for young lovers Romeo and Juliet, but when Shakespeare's famous line is uttered by traitor Alan Carr, it's more like murderous Macbeth.

He has struck in plain sight - again - killing off Claudia's "Queen of the Castle", Celia Imrie, by quoting the bard while pouring her a goblet of wine at a lavish dinner for the remaining contestants.

"Oh honestly, just because I was brave enough to get the one traitor out," Imrie said when she learned her fate, referencing the faithfuls FINALLY getting rid of traitor Jonathan Ross.

Imrie's demise was indeed a sombre moment for all concerned.

"I love being here, it's been gorgeous and I'm devastated. I so wanted to stay to the end, but it's a game," she said sadly.

After learning it was Imrie's last supper, the burly Joe Marler became emotional, saying: "My darling Celia is gone. My heart is broken. I'm sick of this - they are taking out some lovely, lovely people.

"I'm not having it any more."

But as Ed Gamble pointed out in BBC Two's Celebrity Traitors Uncloaked, Imrie's demise was ripe for humour as well.

Her accidental fart in episode three was the gift that kept giving.

"Farting is such sweet sorrow," he said to her, in a line worthy of William Shakespeare himself, who also enjoyed contrasting dark, dramatic moments with bursts of humour.

Carr clearly got more of a taste for murder as the show progressed, bumping off Paloma Faith in plain sight and handing Lucy Beaumont her death warrant.

But this time round, his conscience re-emerged, and he found it "heartbreaking".

"I'm really hoping third time's a charm," he said, trying to convince himself he still had it in him to keep going.

Host Claudia Winkleman was rattled by losing Imrie, declaring: "I love her", as she stalked out of the breakfast room clutching Imrie's portrait.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carr later looked a bit edgy about the upcoming round table, telling Cat Burns his Shakepearean moment was "so obvious".

"I'm so nervous, what do we do if everyone goes for me today," he said.

"I just hope no one puts two and two together with the the eggy Shakespeare quote."

Later on, the contestants had to put their doubts and suspicions aside for the day's challenge - in a creepy room full of headless dummies, which needed their Celebrity Traitor heads to be reattached.

Easy enough - except our celebrities had to navigate through a fiendish array of red laser beams, all pointing at awkward angles, meaning the most nimble had the easiest time of it.

Nick Mohammed turned out to be something of a twinkle toes, making it through with relative ease.

But poor Marler had a trickier time of it, saying: "I'm not one of the nimble, agile rugby players" and calling himself a bit of an "oil rig".

Carr, noting that Claire Balding's head "looked like Boris Johnson", decided to carry Imrie across first, saying: "I took Celia's head because I missed her - even though I murdered her, but I had pangs of guilt!"

He later took his own, admitting: "I grabbed my own head, I'm a narcissist… well someone's got to love it!"

After a nail-biting finish, the celebs managed to complete the task, earning Claudia's praise, including a surprising accolade.

"Thank you, you were amazing. That was better than my wedding day," she said.

After all the camaraderie of the challenge, it was then even harder for the contestants to face the round table, where with just six of them left, everyone felt exposed.

Burns was hoping she hadn't "given them enough to cling on to", while Kate Garraway was uncharacteristically bullish.

"I'm going to fight to the death," she said.

There was plenty of fighting talk from Marler too, who looked like he was going to name and shame Carr and vote for him.

But he ended up voting for Garraway, calling her a "dipsy damsel", and she was voted off - yet another faithful biting the dust.

She gave a touching speech as she departed, referencing the death of her husband, political lobbyist and therapist Derek Draper. Draper died last year after living with extreme complications after getting Covid during the pandemic.

"I've had a lot of years of being very serious and very sad, and you've all allowed me to play the most amazing game," she said.

"But also you've allowed me to play and be silly and have fun. Every single one of you.

"I'm going to take away a new idea at the start of a new kind of life really, so thank you very much for that."

David Olusoga also got a couple of votes, including one from Carr, who managed to mostly lie low during the discussion, along with Burns.

Or so they thought.

Marler is onto them, convinced they're both traitors, and is now rallying Mohammed and Olusoga to back him as they go into the final.

"I'm hoping to get really close to Alan and Cat so they keep me in the game, and then I can try and pull the rug from under their feet last minute," he said.

"Sorry traitors, I'm coming for you."

There was a telling moment right near the end of the show, when each remaining contestant had to look the others in the eye and tell them they were a faithful.

The others kept straight faces, but Carr couldn't manage it without dissolving into a fit of giggles. One X user called it "the TV moment of the year".

"I am a faithful, I just get nervous," Carr told everyone.

"Yeah, I'm not having it," said Marler.

If Marler puts his full force behind his convictions, he could prove to be unstoppable.

Ever since I was a child I have loved wildflowers. I have fond memories of the woods in Sussex, where I grew up, filling with primroses early in the year and carpeted with bluebells in the spring.

I always used their nicknames - "eggs and bacon" for birds-foot-trefoil (a native plant known for its yellow slipper-like petals) and "bread-and-cheese" for the young shoots of the British tree hawthorn, which my friends and I would eat. And pretend to like!

We picked rosehips from hedges too, which we split open to make itching powder, perfect for playground pranks.

But later in life, on my walks through the countryside, I began to notice dwindling numbers of wildflowers. I missed the grasslands, bursting with colour, that I'd so enjoyed in my childhood.

According to the charity Plantlife, approximately 97% of wildflower meadows have been lost across the UK since the 1930s, while species-rich grassland areas, which used to be a common sight, are now among the most threatened habitats.

"It's definitely a story of severe overall decline, both in the cover of flowers but also the diversity," explains Simon Potts, professor of biodiversity and ecosystem services at Reading University.

So, what will happen if there isn't more intervention to save wildflowers? What will the future look like?

"Awful, in a word," says Prof Potts. "If we, let's say, take a scenario where we just continue business as usual as we are now, we will still keep losing our wildflowers.

"And with that, we lose the beneficial biodiversity like the pollinators and the natural enemies of pests."

As a bee lover I am on team pollinator - which is one of the reasons why my husband and I decided to plant our own wildflower meadow. Not just for the beautiful colours but for the vibrancy of the bees, butterflies and moths flying around, which need that habitat.

Yet since then, I've come to understand that the loss of wildflowers could bring - and the other perhaps more unexpected consequences too.

Higher food prices, less wildlife

"The consequence will be for farmers," argues Prof Potts. "They will get low yields and poor quality crops, consumers will have to pay higher prices. Our environment will be degraded, eroded, will have less wildlife.

"Many of them [wildflowers] produce nectar and pollen, which is super important for things like wild bees, hoverflies, and butterflies, that can pollinate crops."

Prof Daniel Gibbs, food security lead at the University of Birmingham's School of Biosciences, also has concerns about the long-term consequences.

"Over time, and alongside pressures from climate change and land degradation, this could make our food system more fragile, and negatively impact food security," he says - meaning we could, for example, find ourselves with more limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

There are also studies showing that fields near wildflower-rich margins or meadows produce better-quality fruit and higher yields.

"Wildflowers can also support some bugs, like spiders and carabid beetles… [which] do an absolutely fantastic job in controlling some of the pests that we get on crops - that can either damage the crop or sometimes lower the quality of the produce," adds Prof Potts.

He describes wildflowers as almost like little factories, pumping out beneficial bits of biodiversity that can help with food production.

"Farmers may have to rely more on manual pollination," Prof Gibbs says. "Or we may need to look to increasing food imports, both of which can drive up prices."

Farming under strain

Multiple factors are behind the decline. Sarah Shuttleworth, a botanist with Plantlife, argues that certain intensive farming methods have contributed.

But some intensive farming methods have also allowed farmers to grow food for the country - and farmers I spoke to pointed out that they face tough financial choices.

Though there have been government subsidies in place for years, meaning farmers are paid by the government to support wildlife on their land, since Brexit the way these grants are paid has changed, with different schemes designed in each of the devolved nations.

In England, there has been frustration in some quarters about the speed and rollout of the grants and the fact that some schemes have been paused - such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), though this is due to reopen, while others extended at the last minute, leaving farmers less able to plan ahead.

Speaking about the SFI scheme, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spokesperson told the BBC: "We inherited farming schemes which were untargeted and underspent, meaning millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.

"We have changed direction to ensure public money is spent effectively, and last year all the government's farming budget was spent."

They also acknowledged that wildflowers are vital, providing food and habitats for pollinators and wildlife, as well as improving biodiversity, and added: "We are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history and under our agri-environment schemes we are funding millions of hectares of wildflower meadows."

As part of its new deal for farmers, Defra said it has committed nearly £250m in farming grants to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector.

Mark Meadows, Warwickshire chair of the National Farmers' Union (NFU), maintains 6m (20ft) wildflower strips around many of his fields. He feared that without an extension to his current agreement with Defra he'd have to return some wildflower margins to crop production.

"I'd love [to] be profitable enough [to] say 'Look, we'll leave 5% of our farmland,'… but agricultural costs have gone up a lot," he says.

Other farmers share similar tales. David Lord is a third-generation farmer in Essex and member of the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

"I'm 47 and I've never known farming to be under so much strain," he says.

Knowing what funding for nature recovery on farms will be in place in future years is, he says, crucial. "It takes time and care and cost to maintain [wildflowers]... A lot of farmers aren't going to be minded to just keep these habitats in place without the funding."

Why we created a meadow

There are some glimmers of hope.

Prof Potts says there has at least been a slowdown in decline over the last couple of decades - and perhaps a limited recovery for some species.

"I think [this] reflects some of the agricultural practices that have been a bit more nature-friendly."

Nature writer, and author of Flora Britannica, Richard Mabey, agrees that the decline in wildflowers is far from universal.

Certain species such as cow parsley, yarrow and knapweed are in fact spreading, and he welcomes an influx of non-native plants and "garden escapes", such as snowdrop and buddleia.

Even so, Prof Potts says: "It is the most precious things that we're losing the most of." This includes cornflowers, corncockle and corn marigold - what he terms the iconic British countryside flowers.

And the overall decline is why my husband and I decided to create our own wildflower meadow from an overgrown arable field.

There was a field next to our house, which I had put beehives in, with permission from the owner. I had often thought it would be wonderful to create a wildflower meadow around those hives, so when the opportunity arose to buy the field, we decided to go ahead.

A conservation specialist advised us on where to buy the seed. It was particularly important to get some yellow rattle seed, which helps keep more dominant grasses in check. This in turn gives other wildflowers more opportunity to gain a foothold.

Our first year after sowing was amazing. A patriotic bloom of red, white and blue burst across the field. The red was from poppies which came from the disturbed ground. The white was ox-eye daisies, bladder campion and wild carrot, with spires of bright blue from viper's bugloss.

The colour has changed over time - the splash of red did not return, but different wildflowers arrived in their place.

The most spectacular year was last summer. Orchid seeds I'd scattered many years before and almost forgotten about, managed to flower. We counted more than 100 bee orchids — which to a bee lover like me, was the climax of years of work.

In fairness, I should admit it's years of my husband Chris's work. He found an old-fashioned seed fiddle for us to use — a hand-held device used to scatter the seeds in a controlled way, operated as though drawing a bow across a violin.

He also cut the hay at the end of summer, initially trying with a scythe - Poldark-style - but ultimately finding a small tractor does the trick in a less backbreaking way.

Of course, many people are not in the fortunate position we found ourselves in, of being able to create a wildflower meadow. And in the UK, you cannot plant wildflowers just anywhere — you would most likely need the landowner's permission.

But growing numbers of people are trying to create their own patches of wildflowers. Plantlife reports that more and more are joining its No Mow May initiative — an annual campaign to let wildflowers grow freely, by packing away the lawnmower.

Sarah Shuttleworth says just a small spot can make a difference, especially when it comes to pollinators. "Anyone who has a patch of grass could do their bit… the idea is that you're recreating a meadow-type management scheme, but in a very, very micro scale."

Time for a radical rethink?

The charity would like to see wildflower habitats being given the same kind of protection as other precious landscapes. Meanwhile Prof Potts thinks, "We need a bit more of a radical think about how to support farmers to do the right thing."

New housing developments could also prove a way to create wildflower meadows. Under the government's Biodiversity Net Gain scheme, set up under the Environment Act, developers creating building sites are obliged to ensure the same amount of biodiversity at the end of the project, as they had at the start, plus 10%.

Ben Taylor manages the Iford Estate, farming land near Lewes in Sussex. For a recording of Open Country on Radio 4, he showed me with great pride around a new wildflower meadow, which was part of a 90-acre site, funded as a pilot by the scheme.

"We have seen hares here now, which we never had a year or two ago, before we started doing this. So it's really exciting..."

But, I wondered, does it make sense to take all of those acres of land out of food production?

Mr Taylor says the soil was poor there anyway. "You have to have nature to be able to grow food," he adds. "Because you need the pollinators as you need the ecosystem, the food chains, the soil webs and everything else to be able to grow food sustainably in the long-term - so I like to think of it as a reservoir of biodiversity."

Many ecologists also want us to look beyond the benefits the wildflowers provide for us.

"Those species are just valuable in their own right, regardless of what they do or what they provide… They've also got their own right to be," argues Dr Kelly Hemmings, associate professor in ecology at the Royal Agricultural University.

Richard Mabey stresses a similar point. "They are important, in my view, for ethical reasons, simply because they exist.

"Beyond that they are the infrastructure of all other life on the Earth, the fundamental base of the food chain."

Top picture credit: Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published - click here to find out how.

Bills for some of the country's most intensive business energy users will be cut by £420m from next year, the government has said.

Speaking to the BBC, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said about 500 businesses in industries including steel, glass and cement would benefit from a 90% discount on their electricity network charges - up from 60%.

Unite's secretary general Sharon Graham said she welcomed help with costs, but the amount saved would be "quite small" with profits in the energy sector "obscene" and in need of an overhaul.

It comes less than a month from the Budget, with the government facing questions about how it can unleash growth, while keeping its commitments on employment rights.

Last year, the UK's energy costs were the highest in the G7 group of developed nations.

For the same year, the International Energy Agency reported that UK industrial energy costs were almost double the average across its members.

Speaking to the BBC at Encirc Glass in Chester, Peter Kyle said the funding was aimed at "levelling the playing field" with international competitors, and that the bill reduction would be paid for through existing government tax revenue.

"The savings we have made for it, we have targeted to make businesses like this more competitive, so therefore creating more jobs, more wealth, more revenue for our country," he said.

The scheme is applicable across England, Wales, and Scotland, and some of the companies which will benefit from the change include Tata Steel at Port Talbot, and INEOS in the Scottish town of Grangemouth.

The reduction is on network costs, which are what businesses pay to access the UK's electricity network, and make up about 20% of a company's energy bill - meaning a 90% reduction works out at about 18% of the overall energy bill.

Reacting, UK Steel said the uplift in compensation was "greatly welcomed" - but that it would only mean a cut of 14 million for the beleaguered industry and firms wouldn't see the benefit until payments were made in arrears in 2027.

"It is frustrating that the steel industry must face yet another year of uncompetitive electricity prices," said UK Steel's director general Gareth Stace.

'It's complete toffee'

Speaking to the BBC at Unite's head office in London, its secretary general Sharon Graham said employers told her they were competitive on "every single measure", with the exception of industrial energy costs.

Research carried out by Unite, which has more than 1.1 million members, found that £30bn in profit was made in the UK's energy sector in 2024 - with industrial energy bills made up of about 29% energy company profits.

Its research also looked at the breakdown for domestic bills.

Roughly a third of what a household pays on energy bills in a year - about £500 - goes towards energy company profits, Graham said, urging the government to nationalise the industry.

This is a suggestion opponents criticise for its potentially enormous cost.

"You know, this argument that keeps coming up, 'oh, it will take us down the road of Liz Truss' - is just complete toffee," said Ms Graham.

"The reality is, what Liz Truss did is that she borrowed for tax cuts for the rich, and she didn't have a plan that she put before the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility]."

'More holes than Swiss cheese'

While the action on energy bills will provide some relief for heavy industry, there are broader concerns in the business community about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill.

One of Labour's flagship policies, it is currently making its way through Parliament and would give workers certain rights from their first day of work.

These would include protection against unfair dismissal and the right to guaranteed hours - which businesses say could potentially make it riskier to hire someone.

The Federation of Small Business has said nine out of 10 of its members are worried about the bill, with two thirds saying they would recruit less staff in response to it.

Even the Resolution Foundation, the progressive think tank seen as having deep ties within the government, has cautioned the bill would "inhibit hiring" with "little obvious gain to workers".

Peter Kyle said he did not see improved rights of workers as being "in contention with" the interests of business.

He said it would be implemented in a way that would contribute "towards the ability for businesses to make money by increasing productivity, by having workers that have security and rights that are fit for the age that we live in".

However, he added he was "listening very closely" to employers and workers "to make sure there's a probationary period that gets that balance right".

For Sharon Graham, the legislation as it stands is "a burnt out shell".

"I think I said at one point it had more holes than Swiss cheese," she said.

"The reason that I said that, is that what looks good when you first look at it - and I've been a negotiator for 35 years, so I do look under the bonnet - fire and rehire [is] banned.

"But then what you realise that is, in most circumstances, if an employer said there was financial difficulty, if a council says there's financial difficulty, then they can fire and rehire you."

We've all looked at our bank account and wondered why we don't have as much money as we thought we did, and suddenly, the bills, shopping and socialising begin to add up.

For many of us, our relationship with money is strained and dealing with financial matters leaves us feeling overwhelmed or stressed.

If you're struggling to get on top of your finances, here are four ways to help you manage your money better.

1. Look at when you spend money

Sitting down and thinking about what actually drives you to spend money can help you stop destructive patterns, says journalist and author Anniki Sommerville.

When she previously worked in a very stressful corporate role, she bought new clothes everytime she achieved something difficult or challenging.

"I felt like I deserved to reward myself.

"I had this pattern of spending, which was like 'you've done a really good presentation, now you deserve to buy yourself something.'"

Abigail Foster, a chartered accountant and author, says the easiest way to discover these kinds of habits is looking through your bank statements, to see when you spend the most.

"Is it late at night? Is it the weekends? I have friends that have really bad habits of when they're bored on the train, they start buying things."

Understanding these instincts, enables us to put in steps to prevent them.

"You can be better equipped to make an alternative decision and go, 'Do you know what? I can just take a deep breath and not purchase something.'"

2. Spend an hour a week on your finances

Anniki says when she was younger, she often felt scared to check her bank balance and avoided dealing with money as much as possible.

This kind of behaviour is often linked to our education, says Claer Barrett, consumer editor at the Financial Times.

"How we felt about maths in school, maybe that burning feeling of shame of not knowing the answer or putting your hand up to answer a question and getting it wrong, that can often make us feel like, I can't do maths. So therefore, I can't do money."

"We should be really pushing on that door and trying to understand more about our financial situation."

Abigail says the only way to do this is to force yourself to tackle it head on, setting aside a set amount of time each week to look at your bank account and all your outgoings.

"It's a minimum of an hour a week.

"Just go through your finances and kind of be hit with it. It sounds a lot, but it can be really calming for your nervous system."

Doing this will often throw up outgoings that you've forgotten, such as a subscription for a gym you haven't been to in six months or a random app you've forgotten you've subscribed to, she says.

3. Don't let jargon put you off - ask questions

Often the terms associated with money can be offputting.

Claer says don't let words like investing, scare you, instead take time to learn about them.

"Whether we're talking about stocks and shares, or investing in a pension. We need to give ourselves every advantage financially," she says.

"So being shy or feeling shameful, not asking these interrogating questions is the worst thing we can do."

She suggests making a list of things you are unsure about, whether that's consolidating pensions or asking for a pay rise at work, and slowly working through them.

Don't be too hard on yourself if you're just starting.

"We're all a work in progress. I've got my financial to do list at the back of my diary. There are some things that have been on it for more than a year.

"That's just life, but as long as I can try and do something every week towards making my financial situation a better place, that's moving forward."

4. Set up a freedom fund

Many of us are already too stretched keeping up with the costs of everday living to even think about saving.

But for those who can afford to, Abigail suggests setting up a "freedom fund" to give you options when life gets difficult.

She recommends setting up an easy access account only in your name and not joint, and to put a portion of your income away every month.

Unlike an emergency fund pot for things like unexpected car and house repairs, a freedom fund is money designed to "make you happier."

"So when a job no longer serves you, you can think 'I've got some money sat away so I can go and look for something else.'

"Or if you want to leave a partner, that freedom fund can give you the ability to walk out."