It's the bilateral summit every European leader wants to be at.

And for good reason. On Friday, Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Vladimir Putin in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine.

Territorial concessions will likely be discussed, and Europe (not least Ukraine) doesn't want its borders to be redrawn through force.

But, as things stand, there are no invites for the country being invaded, nor the continent it sits in.

"Brace ourselves for some pretty outrageous Russian demands," warns Lord Simon McDonald, a former head of the UK Foreign Office.

"It will be theatrical," he adds. "Putin is going to ask for things that nobody else would concede - with the possible exception of Donald Trump."

• Trump says he will try to get back territory for Ukraine in talks with Putin

President Zelensky has said he won't agree to the giving up of any land, or even freezing the conflict along the current front lines.

His argument is that it won't slow a Russian war machine that has waged a full-scale war for more than three and a half years. Concessions, he claims, would only speed it up.

"It's clear Putin wants a photo with the most influential people on Earth, which is President Trump, and he wants sanctions to be postponed, which he'll probably get," the EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, tells me.

"The question is, what is success for the US in the meeting?" she asks. "If President Zelensky is there, it would be a clear success."

But if Ukraine's leader isn't at the Alaskan table, how might the Kremlin's proposals be challenged?

"He could go," said the US president on that possibility. But Kyiv and Europe want it to go from a "maybe" to a "yes".

Adding to their anxiety is the one-on-one format being a Kremlin idea the White House agreed to.

A European scramble

Brussels' European Quarter isn't its usual flurry of political activity during August, but these US-Russia talks have changed that.

On Monday, Kallas hosted a virtual meeting of foreign ministers where they called for an unconditional ceasefire before any deal. New sanctions for Moscow were announced as well.

I asked Kallas what she thought Donald Trump meant by suggesting some land could be swapped.

"We have to ask President Trump," she says. "But it is clear an aggressor can't be awarded for aggression. Otherwise, we will just see more aggression around the world because it pays off."

Europe is trying to do two things: rally around Ukraine, as well as muscle in on this American-led peace process.

Whether or not Zelensky does make the trip, the door for Europe has firmly remained shut since Trump retook office at the start of the year.

At the time his envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said the bloc wouldn't be involved in any peace talks. It's a position the Europeans have been unable to change through diplomacy.

Their relationship with the US has still improved, not least with significant increases in their defence spending. But Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister, believes they need a more central role.

"This is a matter of existential European security interest," he explains.

"We appreciate Trump's efforts but we'll be taking our own decision in Europe too.

"A simple ceasefire would not resolve the problem."

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has secured a remote sit down between European leaders, as well as Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, this Wednesday.

They hope to be consulted on America's plan to end Russia's invasion, but ex-UK Foreign Office head Lord McDonald would be surprised to see a last-minute European invite for Friday.

"The end will be as protracted as the war has been long," he warned.

"The meeting is a milestone, but it doesn't actually mean it will lead anywhere."

President Donald Trump has deployed the National Guard to Washington DC and taken control of the city's police force as he pledges to crack down on crime and homelessness in the nation's capital.

Trump declared a "public safety emergency" on Monday, deploying 800 National Guard troops who will bolster hundreds of federal law enforcement officers who were deployed over the weekend.

"It's becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness," he told reporters at the White House.

The city's Mayor Muriel Bowser has rejected the president's claims about crime and while there was a spike in 2023, statistics show it has fallen since then. Violent crime in the city is also at a 30-year low.

"I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse," Trump said during a news conference in which he was flanked by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will lead the city's police force while it is under federal control.

"This is liberation day in DC, and we're going to take our capital back," he said.

Trump said Washington DC had been "taken over by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals" as well as "drugged out maniacs and homeless people".

According to data from the city's Metropolitan Police Department, homicides dropped by 32 percent between 2023 and 2024 and reached their lowest level since 2019.

There has been another substantial drop this year of 12 percent, the data shows.

Mayor Bowser, a Democrat, acknowledged there had been a "terrible" spike in crime in 2023, which mirrored a national trend, but she pushed back against any claims of a crimewave in the city.

"We are not experiencing a crime spike," she told MSNBC on Sunday. "The president is very aware of our efforts."

When asked about White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller's comment that Washington is more violent than Baghdad, Bowser said "any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false".

Of the 800 National Guard troops who will be activated, between 100-200 will be deployed and supporting law enforcement at any given time, the army said in a statement.

As well as that deployment, Trump said he would place the city's police department under direct federal control using the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

That act was instituted by former President Richard Nixon to allow residents of Washington DC - which is the only US city that is not in any of the 50 states - to elect a city council and a mayor.

But it also has a caveat that allows the president to take control of the city's police force if "special conditions of an emergency nature exist".

If the president intends to take control for longer than 48 hours, they need to provide a written notice to Congress. And even if that notice is provided, they cannot keep control of the police for longer than 30 days.

On Sunday, when asked about the possibility of the president taking control of the city's police department, Mayor Bowser said: "There are very specific things in our law that would allow [that]. None of those conditions exist in our city right now."

She said she was "concerned" about the National Guard enforcing local laws.

The mayor's office has not yet responded to a request for comment from the BBC on Trump's Monday announcement.

As well as crime, Trump also spoke at length about homelessness in Washington DC.

"We're getting rid of the slums," he said, without giving further details. He said homeless people would be sent elsewhere but did not say where.

Trump added that "everything should be perfect" when dignitaries and foreign leaders visit the city.

"It's a very strong reflection of our country," he said. "If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty and they don't respect us."

Local groups working with homeless people in the capital told the BBC they had actually seen progress in recent years.

Homelessness is down almost 20% for individuals in Washington DC in 2025 compared to five years ago, said Ralph Boyd, the president and chief executive of So Others Might Eat (SOME) - a group that provides people in the city with housing, clothing and other social services.

He also said Trump's proposal to move people out of the city was not a long-term solution.

"All it will do is transfer the problem somewhere else into communities that are perhaps less equipped to deal with it than we are," Boyd said.

Meanwhile, outside the White House, protesters concerned about Trump's actions gathered and chanted "hands off DC" and "protect home rule".

"Trump does not care about DC's safety, he cares about control," a speaker at the event said.

The president's actions follow a series of social media posts in recent days in which he has criticised the running of Washington DC. Trump has long complained about the city's Democratic leadership for their handling of crime and homelessness.

He has also responded angrily to a former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) who was attacked recently in in the city.

During Monday's press conference, Trump said the employee was "savagely beaten by a band of roaming thugs" and was "left dripping in blood".

He also mentioned other federal government employees and elected officials who have been attacked, including a Democratic lawmaker and an intern.

"This is a threat to America," Trump said.

The first time Trump deployed the National Guard was in June, when he ordered 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles to deal with unrest over raids on undocumented migrants.

The last time the National Guard was deployed to Washington DC was in response to the Capitol riot in 2021.

An explosion was reported at the US Steel Clairton plant outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Monday, causing multiple injuries and trapping several people, officials say.

Allegheny County Emergency Services spokesperson Kasey Reigner confirmed there were "dozens" of injuries but could not confirm fatalities or a cause, CBS News reported.

Another spokesperson confirmed a rescue operation was underway for people trapped.

Governor Josh Shapiro posted on social media that the state's emergency management services and police had been deployed to the plant.

US Senator John Fetterman wrote on X that he was also at the scene and witnessed "an active search and rescue underway."

KDKA News, a local broadcaster, reported at least one person was unaccounted for.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

US President Donald Trump has said he will try to get some territory back for Ukraine during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

"Russia's occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They occupied prime territory. We're going to try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine," he told a news conference.

Trump said the talks in Alaska would be a "feel-out meeting" aimed at urging Putin to end the war, and that there would be "some swapping, changes in land".

It is not the first time he has used the phrase "land-swapping", though it is unclear what land Russia could cede to Ukraine. Kyiv has never lay claim to any Russian territories.

Trump said he will update European leaders if Putin proposes a "fair deal" during the talks, adding that he would speak to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky first "out of respect".

"I'll call him first... I'll call him after, and I may say, 'lots of luck, keep fighting,' or I may say, 'we can make a deal'", he said.

Trump also said that while he and Zelensky "get along", he "very severely disagrees with what he has done". Trump has previously blamed Zelensky for the war in Ukraine, which was sparked by Russia's full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022.

The US president announced the meeting with Putin last Friday - the day of his self-imposed deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face more US sanctions.

In response to news of the Alaska summit, Zelensky said any agreements without input from Kyiv would amount to "dead decisions".

Five Al Jazeera journalists were killed by an Israeli strike in Gaza City on Sunday - among them 28-year-old correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who had reported prominently on the war since its outset.

The other four Al Jazeera journalists killed were correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, and cameramen Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, Al Jazeera said.

Two others were also killed, the broadcaster said. Hospital officials named Mohammed al-Khaldi, a local freelance journalist, as one of them.

The targeted attack on a tent used by journalists has drawn strong international condemnation including from the UN, Qatar where Al Jazeera is based, and media freedom groups.

Israel says Sharif was "the head of a Hamas terrorist cell" but has produced little evidence to support that. Sharif previously denied it, and Al Jazeera and media rights groups have rejected the allegation.

The BBC understands Sharif worked for a Hamas media team in Gaza before the current conflict.

In some of his social media posts before his death, the journalist can be heard criticising Hamas.

Committee for the Protection of Journalists CEO Jodie Ginsberg told the BBC there was no justification for Sharif's killing.

"International law is very clear on this point that the only individuals who are legitimate targets during a war are active combatants. Having worked as a media advisor for Hamas, or indeed for Hamas currently, does not make you an active combatant", she said.

"And nothing that the Israeli forces has produced so far in terms of evidence gives us any kind of assurance that he was even an active member of Hamas."

The 'only voice' left in Gaza City

Anas al-Sharif became one of Al Jazeera's most prominent reporters in Gaza during the war.

Born in the densely populated Jabalia area in the north of the Strip, he worked for Al Jazeera for about two years, the broadcaster said.

"He worked for the whole length of the war inside Gaza reporting daily on the situation of people and the attacks which are committed in Gaza," Salah Negm, director of news at Al Jazeera English, told the BBC.

Married with a four-year-old daughter, Sham, and a one-year-old son, Salah, he was separated from them for long stretches during the war while he continued to report from the north of the territory after refusing to follow Israeli evacuation orders.

A joint Instagram post on his official account along with his wife's in January this year showed a picture of Sharif smiling with his two children. The caption said it was the first time he was meeting Salah, after 15 months of war.

Sharif appeared frequently in live broadcasts, reporting extensively on the situation in Gaza.

He reported on the targeting of his colleagues, including prominent Al Jazeera correspondent Ismail al-Ghoul and cameraman Rami al-Rifi, who were killed in 2024 in an air strike in Gaza City.

His father had already been killed in December 2023 when the family home was targeted in an Israeli strike. Hours before he himself was killed, he posted about an intense Israeli bombardment of Gaza City.

Mohamed Moawad, Al Jazeera's managing editor, described him as the "only voice left in Gaza City" - which Israel now plans to militarily occupy.

Raed Fakih, input manager at Al Jazeera's Arabic-language channel, told the BBC Sharif was "courageous, dedicated, and honest - that's what made him successful as a journalist with hundreds of thousands of social media followers from all over the world".

Fakih, who is in charge of the channel's bureaux and correspondents, added: "His dedication took him to areas where no other reporter ventured to go, especially those that witnessed the worst massacres. His integrity kept him true to his message as a journalist."

Fakih said he spoke to Sharif many times on the phone throughout the war.

"In our last conversations, he told me about the famine and starvation he was enduring, about how hard it is to survive with so little food," he said.

"He felt he had no choice but to amplify the voice of the Gazans. He was living the same hardships they are living now, suffering from famine, mourning loved ones.

"His father was killed in an Israeli bombing. In that way, he was like all Gazans: carrying loss, pain, and resilience. And even in the face of death, he persisted, because this is a story that must be told."

Mohammed Qreieh, 33, was a father of two from Gaza City, the Associated Press news agency reported. Like Sharif, he was separated from his family for months during the war as he reported from the front lines in northern Gaza, AP added.

Qreieh's last live broadcast was on Sunday evening, minutes before he was targeted, Al Jazeera Arabic reported.

Israel alleges Sharif led 'terrorist cell', with little evidence

The Israeli military accused Sharif of posing as a journalist, saying he had "served as the head of a terrorist cell in Hamas" and was responsible for launching rocket attacks at Israelis - but it has produced little evidence to support these claims.

In a statement, the IDF said it had documents which "unequivocally prove" his "military affiliation" with Hamas, including "personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, phone directories, and salary documents".

It has publicly released some screenshots of spreadsheets apparently listing Hamas operatives from the northern Gaza Strip, noting injuries to Hamas operatives and a section of what is said to be a phone directory for the armed group's East Jabalia battalion.

Israel had previously accused Sharif of being a member of Hamas's military wing - something he and his employer strongly denied.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a media freedom group, said the allegations against him were "baseless" and called on the international community to intervene.

"Without strong action from the international community to stop the Israeli army... we're likely to witness more such extrajudicial murders of media professionals," RSF said.

Nearly 200 journalists have been killed in the war Israel launched in response to Hamas's October 7, 2023 assault, according to RSF.

Fakih from Al Jazeera accused the Israeli military of fabricating stories about journalists before killing them, to "hide what [it] is committing in Gaza". Israel has previously denied targeting journalists.

He described this as a "longstanding pattern" and referred to the Israeli military's killing of veteran Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Aqla, who was shot in the head during an Israeli army raid in the occupied West Bank in 2022.

The Israeli military concluded that one of its soldiers probably killed her, but called her death unintentional. Al Jazeera said its evidence showed it was a "deliberate killing".

"Here is a crucial fact: had Israel been held accountable for Shireen's assassination, it would not have dared to kill 200 journalists in Gaza," said Fakih.

Sharif knew he risked being targeted by Israel after its Arabic-language spokesman posted a video of him in July and accused him of being a member of Hamas' military wing.

In a post published on his X account, which was prewritten in the event of his death, Sharif said he "gave every effort and all my strength to be a support and a voice for my people... Do not forget Gaza."

Gladiators star and Olympic sprinter Harry Aikines-Aryeetey is the first celebrity contestant to be announced for the Strictly Come Dancing 2025 line-up.

Aikines-Aryeetey, known as Nitro to Gladiators fans, appeared on the BBC's Newsround on Monday to announce he will be joining the dancing show.

"I'm so excited to be part of the Strictly family this series and I'm ready to give it all I've got," he said.

Strictly Come Dancing airs on BBC One and iPlayer from September through to December.

Aikines-Aryeetey is a former Team GB sprinter and was the first athlete to win gold medals at both 100 and 200 metres at the World Youth Championships.

In 2005, aged 17, he was won the BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year award.

He has competed at two Olympic Games and is a three-time European champion and two-time Commonwealth champion.

In 2023, he was unveiled as Nitro in Gladiators, and took part in last year's Strictly Come Dancing Christmas Special partnered with Nancy Xu.

Aikines-Aryeetey said the Christmas Special "was so nice I just had to do it twice".

On Monday, he appeared live in the Newsround studio disguised as "world-famous choreographer Nicky Trott", there to talk about a scientific study into the benefits of dancing every day.

He then revealed his real identity and told viewers how excited he was to be joining the dancing competition.

"I'll be bringing tons of energy to light up the dance floor," he said. "Let's hope I'm as quick picking up the routines as I am on the track."

The next three celebrity contestants joining the new series of Strictly will be announced on The One Show on Monday evening.

Two new professional dancers are also joining the line-up this year - Alexis Warr, who won US dance series So You Think You Can Dance in 2022, and Australian-born Julian Caillon, who has appeared as a professional dancer on three seasons of Australia's Dancing With The Stars.

The show, which has been airing since 2004, has faced multiple controversies over the past year relating to the behaviour of some of its professional dancers and celebrity guests.

Professional dancers Giovanni Pernice and Graziano Di Prima left the show last year following allegations about their behaviour towards their dance partners.

The BBC announced new welfare measures for Strictly last July. These include having chaperones in all rehearsal rooms, adding two new welfare producers and providing additional training for the professional dancers, production team and crew.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they are extending their deal for films and TV shows with Netflix.

This has been described as a "multi-year, first look deal", which would give Netflix a first option on proposals from Prince Harry and Meghan's Archewell production company.

It's a looser arrangement than their previous deal - but it disproves claims that the Sussexes and Netflix are going to completely part company.

Meghan said that she and Harry were inspired by the partnership with Netflix to "create thoughtful content across genres that resonates globally, and celebrates our shared vision".

It's not known how many years the deal is set to last or what financial arrangement is attached. The previous deal, launched in 2020, was believed to be worth about $100m (£75m).

The announcement comes ahead of the second series of the cookery show, With Love, Meghan, being screened later this month.

Audience figures from Netflix showed the first series was not even in the streaming service's top 300 most popular shows in the first half of 2025.

With Love, Meghan, a lifestyle series which showed Meghan cooking with celebrity friends, had 5.3 million views. In comparison, the most-watched programme on Netflix during that time was the drama Adolescence with 145 million views.

A previous Netflix documentary, Harry & Meghan, recounting the couple's departure from their lives as "working royals", had a bigger audience, with 23.4 million views following its launch in December 2022.

Archewell has also announced a special Christmas season edition of With Love, Meghan, which invites viewers to "join Meghan in Montecito for a magical holiday celebration".

With Love, Meghan has been accompanied by a food and drink range, called As Ever, which includes rosé wine and jams.

And there will be a show on Netflix later this year, with Harry and Meghan as producers, called Masaka Kids, A Rhythm Within, about an orphanage in Uganda being a beacon of hope in a situation "where the shadows of the HIV/Aids crisis linger".

Bela Bajaria, Netflix's chief content officer, said: "Harry and Meghan are influential voices whose stories resonate with audiences everywhere.

"The response to their work speaks for itself - Harry & Meghan gave viewers an intimate look into their lives and quickly became one of our most-watched documentary series."

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

Stargazers will soon be treated to what could be one of the year's most dazzling displays, with the Perseid meteor shower reaching its peak on Tuesday night.

The shower lights up the skies each summer, and is known for its bright, fast-moving meteors - often dubbed "shooting stars".

However, visibility could be affected by bright moonlight from the recent Sturgeon Moon, making it harder to see the fainter streaks.

The Perseids are visible to the naked eye - but local weather will play a major role, so check your forecast before heading out.

What is the Perseid meteor shower?

Meteor showers occur when Earth passes through trails of dust and debris left behind by comets or asteroids.

The Perseids come from a comet called Swift–Tuttle, which orbits the Sun once every 133 years.

The comet's dust particles enter Earth's atmosphere at speeds of about 37 miles (59 kilometres) per second.

As they do so, they burn up, creating the bright flashes we call meteors.

The Perseids have been observed for nearly 2,000 years, with some of the earliest records from ancient China.

They are named after the constellation Perseus, from which the meteors appear to originate.

How and when can you watch the Perseids?

The peak night for the Perseids in 2025 falls on 12–13 August.

Meteors tend to increase after midnight, with the best viewing just before sunrise, though some may be visible as earlier in the night.

But this year the peak coincides with a bright Sturgeon Moon, which reached its full phase on 9 August and will still be quite luminous during the peak.

"This year's peak unfortunately lines up with a full moon meaning even in dark sky areas it will be impossible to see the full 100 meteors per hour," said Finn Burridge, science communicator at the Royal Observatory Greenwich.

"However, [the Sturgeon Moon] is no reason not to go out and enjoy the shower - it is still likely that you will see at least 1 or 2 fireballs per hour, even with a full moon," he added.

For darker skies, consider viewing on nights between 16 and 26 August, though meteor activity will be lower.

"Dates nearer to the shower's peak offer the best chance, but this also coincides with the full moon," said Mr Burridge.

"After the full moon is more likely the better time to view, since the Moon will rise later in the night, so I would recommend the peak nights as well as weekend of 16 and 17 August," he added.

Mr Burridge gave a few tips to "maximise your chances of seeing a shooting star".

• Make sure you can see as much of the sky as possible, with no buildings, trees, or hills blocking your view.

• Lie on your back and look upwards, as meteors can appear anywhere in the sky.

• View from somewhere away from the bright lights of towns or cities - but make sure you have some water, a charged phone, and that you have told someone where you are going.

• Be patient. The more time you spend outside, the more likely you are to see one. It takes at least 20 minutes of dark conditions for your eyes to adapt to the dark.

Will the weather cooperate?

Tuesday will be hot during the day for much of the UK, and overnight temperatures into Wednesday are likely to be above average too.

The current forecast suggests there should be clear skies for large areas of the country, although clouds could build through the night in some places.

Check BBC Weather for the forecast in your area.

Motorists have been warned to be on the alert for scammers posing as car finance lenders offering fake compensation.

The warning from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) comes after the watchdog announced it would set up a compensation scheme for motorists who were sold car finance deals that were unlawful.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that in many cases, commission paid by lenders to car dealers for organising loans was legal.

But the judgement left the possibility open for other motorists to claim, including those who had been charged overly large commission fees.

In some cases, car dealers were paid higher commissions by lenders for signing motorists up for higher interest loans, a practice that has been banned since 2021.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the FCA announced it would start consulting on setting up a compensation scheme for eligible motorists, and it expects most eligible people to get less than £950.

The consultation process will take about six weeks, and if the scheme gets approved the FCA expects to start making payments next year.

Following the FCA's compensation announcement, the watchdog said it has received reports of scammers calling people and offering compensation that does not exist in exchange for personal details.

"We're aware of scammers calling people and posing as car finance lenders, offering fake compensation and asking for personal details," said Nisha Arora, director of special projects at the FCA.

"There is no compensation scheme in place yet. If anyone receives a call like this, hang up immediately and do not share any information."

The FCA said it would never ask people for bank account PINs or passwords, and it has urged people to report any scam calls or texts to Ofcom.

A spokesperson for the watchdog said that after receiving early reports from consumers about the targeted scams it issued the warning "to get ahead of it and alert consumers quickly".

The FCA has also previously warned motorists about signing up with claims management companies (CMCs) or firms ahead of any decision on a centralised claims scheme.

In a joint statement with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the FCA pointed out that motorists could sacrifice up to 30% of any claims award in fees to the CMC or law firm.

The point of a centralised redress scheme would be to make it easy for consumers to get compensation, without the need for help from a CMC or law firm, the FCA said.

The final bill for the redress scheme could be as much as £18bn, with the watchdog estimating millions of people who bought new or used cars potentially dating back as far as 2007 could be eligible to make claims.

The FCA has said lenders, including major banks and specialised motor finance companies, would foot the cost.

The UN's human rights office has condemned a targeted Israeli attack that killed six journalists in Gaza, calling it a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law.

Five Al Jazeera journalists, including prominent correspondent Anas al-Sharif, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on Sunday night, alongside a sixth freelance journalist.

The Israeli military said it had targeted Sharif, alleging he had "served as the head of a terrorist cell in Hamas".

Media rights groups and countries including Qatar have condemned the attack. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman said the UK government is "gravely concerned" and called for an independent investigation.

• Follow live - Israel kills prominent Al Jazeera journalist and four colleagues in targeted attack in Gaza

Speaking to reporters, Starmer's official spokesman said Israel should ensure journalists can work safely and report without fear.

The funerals of Sharif, fellow Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and cameramen Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa took place on Monday following the targeted missile strike on their tent in Gaza City.

Mohammad al-Khaldi was named by medics at al-Shifa hospital as the sixth journalist who was killed during the strike, Reuters news agency reported. Another person was also killed in the attack, it said.

Reporters Without Borders, a media freedom group, strongly condemned what it called the assassination of Sharif.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said it was appalled by the attack and Israel had failed to provide evidence to back up its allegations against him.

"Israel has a longstanding, documented pattern of accusing journalists of being terrorists without providing any credible proof," the organisation added.

The Israeli military has suggested it has documents found in Gaza that confirmed Sharif belonged to Hamas.

It said these include "personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, phone directories and salary documents".

The only materials that have been released for publication are screenshots of spreadsheets apparently listing Hamas operatives from the northern Gaza Strip, noting injuries to Hamas operatives and a section of what is said to be a phone directory for the armed group's East Jabalia battalion.

The BBC cannot independently verify these documents.

The BBC understands Sharif worked for a Hamas media team in Gaza before the current conflict.

Israel says he was "the head of a Hamas terrorist cell" but has produced little evidence to support that.

In some of his social media posts before his death, the journalist can be heard criticising Hamas.

No Israeli explanation has so far been given for the killing of the entire Al Jazeera news crew.

CPJ says at least 186 journalists have been killed since the start of Israel's military offensive in Gaza in October 2023 - the deadliest period for journalists since it began recording such data in 1992.

"Israel must respect & protect all civilians, including journalists," the UN Human Rights office said in a post on X. "We call for immediate, safe and unhindered access to Gaza for all journalists."

Last month, the BBC and three other news agencies - Reuters, AP and AFP - issued a joint statement expressing "desperate concern" for journalists in the Strip, who they say are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families.

The Israeli government does not allow international news organisations, including the BBC, into Gaza to report freely, so many outlets rely on Gaza-based reporters for coverage.

Meanwhile in Gaza, five more people have died from malnutrition in the past 24 hours, including one child, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

This brings the total number of malnutrition deaths to 222, including 101 children, the health ministry said.

The UN's humanitarian agency said on Friday that the amount of aid entering Gaza continues to be "far below the minimum required to meet people's immense needs". Last month, UN-backed global food security experts warned the "worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out".

Israel has continued to deny there is starvation in Gaza and has accused UN agencies of not picking up aid at the borders and delivering it.

The UN's humanitarian agency has said it continues to see impediments and delays as it tries to collect aid from Israeli-controlled border zones.

Israel launched its offensive 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.

Since then, 61,430 people have been killed in Gaza as a result of Israel's military campaign, according to the health ministry.

The government's planned overhaul of driving laws in Great Britain has a "major oversight" by not including stronger driving licence rules for new and young motorists, the AA has said.

A number of proposed changes to driving laws were set out on Monday, including possible driving bans for over 70s who fail compulsory eye tests.

There have been calls for the introduction of graduated licences, which would place limits on new drivers, such as not carrying peer-age passengers for an initial period after they pass their practical test.

But Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones told the BBC there were no plans to introduce such measures over concerns they might "unfairly discriminate" against young parents or carers.

The AA welcomed the government's plans in the main, but said "the missing element is measures to safeguard and to save new driver and passenger lives by limiting peer-age passengers for six months".

The latest government figures show a quarter of fatalities from road collisions involve at least one young driver.

They also suggest that male drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other age group, apart from those aged 86 or older.

Road safety charity Brake said this was due to young drivers being more likely to take risks on the road or crash when they have passengers of their own age, something that does not happen as much for older drivers.

On Monday, the government announced a radical shake-up of driving laws in Great Britain. The changes are expected to be included in a new road safety strategy set to be published in the autumn.

The proposals include measures to ban motorists over 70 from driving if they fail compulsory eye tests - a move that comes after an inquest into four deaths caused by drivers with failing eyesight saw a coroner call the UK's licensing system the "laxest in Europe".

Other plans would involve reducing the drink-driving limit in England and Wales to be in line with Scotland's laws, and giving people points on their licence for not wearing a seatbelt, which Davies-Jones cited as part of the government's plans to protect younger motorists.

Asked why graduated licences had not been included, she told BBC Breakfast: "We feel it could potentially overly target younger drivers and unfairly discriminate against them, particularly those who are young parents, young carers, for those who are working, for example.

"This is not currently something that is being looked at. But we will keep everything under review."

Campaigners have previously called for similar restrictions, arguing that new drivers should not be permitted to carry passengers aged 25 or under for an initial period, or until they turn 20, unless accompanied by an older adult.

The RAC has also pushed for such limits under a graduated licensing scheme. Other measures suggested include:

• A minimum six-month learning period for learner drivers before they are eligible for a practical test
• Introducing driving curfews during certain times, most likely late at night
• A reduction in the legal alcohol limit for driving or zero alcohol

Its head of policy, Simon Williams, said: "We are keen to find out what measures [the government] believes will make the biggest difference, especially given so many young drivers are involved in collisions in their first year of driving."

A Department for Transport (DfT) spokesperson said: "Whilst we are not considering graduated driving licences, we absolutely recognise that young people are disproportionately victims of tragic incidents on our roads and continue to tackle this through our THINK! campaign.

"We are considering other measures to address this problem and protect young drivers, as part of our upcoming strategy for road safety - the first in over a decade."

Stargazers will soon be treated to what could be one of the year's most dazzling displays, with the Perseid meteor shower reaching its peak on Tuesday night.

The shower lights up the skies each summer, and is known for its bright, fast-moving meteors - often dubbed "shooting stars".

However, visibility could be affected by bright moonlight from the recent Sturgeon Moon, making it harder to see the fainter streaks.

The Perseids are visible to the naked eye - but local weather will play a major role, so check your forecast before heading out.

What is the Perseid meteor shower?

Meteor showers occur when Earth passes through trails of dust and debris left behind by comets or asteroids.

The Perseids come from a comet called Swift–Tuttle, which orbits the Sun once every 133 years.

The comet's dust particles enter Earth's atmosphere at speeds of about 37 miles (59 kilometres) per second.

As they do so, they burn up, creating the bright flashes we call meteors.

The Perseids have been observed for nearly 2,000 years, with some of the earliest records from ancient China.

They are named after the constellation Perseus, from which the meteors appear to originate.

How and when can you watch the Perseids?

The peak night for the Perseids in 2025 falls on 12–13 August.

Meteors tend to increase after midnight, with the best viewing just before sunrise, though some may be visible as earlier in the night.

But this year the peak coincides with a bright Sturgeon Moon, which reached its full phase on 9 August and will still be quite luminous during the peak.

"This year's peak unfortunately lines up with a full moon meaning even in dark sky areas it will be impossible to see the full 100 meteors per hour," said Finn Burridge, science communicator at the Royal Observatory Greenwich.

"However, [the Sturgeon Moon] is no reason not to go out and enjoy the shower - it is still likely that you will see at least 1 or 2 fireballs per hour, even with a full moon," he added.

For darker skies, consider viewing on nights between 16 and 26 August, though meteor activity will be lower.

"Dates nearer to the shower's peak offer the best chance, but this also coincides with the full moon," said Mr Burridge.

"After the full moon is more likely the better time to view, since the Moon will rise later in the night, so I would recommend the peak nights as well as weekend of 16 and 17 August," he added.

Mr Burridge gave a few tips to "maximise your chances of seeing a shooting star".

• Make sure you can see as much of the sky as possible, with no buildings, trees, or hills blocking your view.

• Lie on your back and look upwards, as meteors can appear anywhere in the sky.

• View from somewhere away from the bright lights of towns or cities - but make sure you have some water, a charged phone, and that you have told someone where you are going.

• Be patient. The more time you spend outside, the more likely you are to see one. It takes at least 20 minutes of dark conditions for your eyes to adapt to the dark.

Will the weather cooperate?

Tuesday will be hot during the day for much of the UK, and overnight temperatures into Wednesday are likely to be above average too.

The current forecast suggests there should be clear skies for large areas of the country, although clouds could build through the night in some places.

Check BBC Weather for the forecast in your area.

Visionary tech pioneer and philanthropist Dame Stephanie Shirley has died at the age of 91.

The boundary-breaking entrepreneur arrived in London at the age of five, just weeks before the outbreak of World War Two, and went on to become a computer industry and women's rights pioneer in the 1950s and 1960s.

She founded the software company Freelance Programmers in 1962, which shook up the tech industry by almost exclusively hiring women, and in later life donated almost £70m to help those with autism and to IT projects.

She was very smart and truly formidable, even adopting the name "Steve" to help her in a male-dominated tech world.

She died on 9 August, her family said in an Instagram post on Monday.

To many women in tech, myself included, Dame Stephanie was inspirational.

Her pioneering and controversial decision to hire exclusively women coders and data inputters, working from home, was way ahead of its time and changed many lives.

She had a difficult life, and it made her tough.

She was stoic about grief and showed - publicly at least - extraordinary strength in the face of a number of traumatic experiences.

She was from a generation whose childhoods were shaped by the atrocities of World War 2.

Born Vera Buchthal in the German city of Dortmund in 1933, Dame Stephanie's Jewish father was a judge.

He had hoped that being in a position of power would protect his family, but as the Nazi government increased its persecution of German Jews, they fled to the Austrian capital Vienna.

She was one of thousands of Jewish children fleeing the Nazis and came to Britain as part of the Kindertransport - a British rescue effort in the months preceding World War 2 which brought 10,000 children to the UK - where she was brought up by loving foster parents.

Determined not to be defined by her traumatic childhood, Dame Stephanie founded a company designed to provide jobs for women with children.

After starting out as a scientific civil servant, in 1962 she founded software company Freelance Programmers - later known as FI Group, later still Xansa - something which was almost unheard of for a woman to do in the 1960s.

The company changed the landscape for women working in technology by offering flexible working practices.

Of the first 300 staff, 297 were female.

The success of the company left Dame Stephanie with a fortune of about £150m, most of which she donated to good causes.

Her late son Giles was autistic and she was an early member of the National Autistic Society, with her charity the Shirley Foundation funding many projects particularly related to autism.

She founded Autism at Kingwood, a service which now supports autistic adults in Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

She also helped set up Prior's Court - a school for autistic young people in Thatcham, Berkshire.

The last time I saw her, I introduced her at an event on stage. She was frail, but as always extremely glamorous and totally captivating.

She said she knew she was coming to the end of her life and she reflected candidly on what she felt she had learned.

She had a strong moral compass and believed in using her wealth for good. And she never stopped standing up to sexism.

She spent her whole life refusing to conform to society's many gender stereotypes and clichés.

Much time has passed since Dame Stephanie started signing letters as Steve in order to get the attention of the male business contacts she was messaging.

But Tech continues to be a male dominated industry and women still have to shout loud to be heard.

Steve was one of the first, and she shouted the loudest.

Additional reporting by Charlotte Edwards

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

Unusual. Quid pro quo. Unprecedented.

That is some of the reaction to news that two of the world's tech giants will pay the US government 15% of their revenue from selling certain advanced chips to China. Industry watchers, former government advisers, policy makers and trade experts have been giving their views on the deal.

The news comes mere months after the Trump administration banned the sale of these chips to China, citing national security concerns.

That ban was lifted in mid-July. And now it seems the US government will go a step further - becoming a part of these American firms' business with China.

And critics argue that is both confusing and worrying.

What are these chips - and why do they matter?

These advanced chips are largely used for artificial intelligence (AI) applications at a time when investors are betting that AI will transform the global economy.

Last month, Nvidia - which is the world's leading chip maker - became the first company ever to hit $4tn (£3tn) in market value.

Nvidia developed the H20 chip, and AMD developed the MI308 chip, especially for the Chinese market.

They are less powerful and therefore cheaper than both companies' flagship chips.

But developing them was the only option for accessing the significant Chinese market after the previous administration of President Joe Biden banned US companies from exporting the most advanced chips to China because of national security concerns.

Under Trump, even the less powerful, made-for-China chips were banned.

The resumption of sales to China is a boon for both Nvidia and AMD because China is such a big market. China's investment in AI is expanding so rapidly that analysts expect it to grow to roughly $100bn this year - a nearly 50% jump compared with last year.

How unusual is the deal with Nvidia and AMD?

"Unprecedented... I don't know what the word is, but it's bad," says trade expert Deborah Elms.

Other experts say no US company has ever done anything like this before.

But Trump did do something similar in June when he approved the takeover of US Steel by Japan's Nippon Steel. That included a so-called "golden share", a rare practice in which the government takes a stake in a business.

In this case, the White House has not said how the agreement will be implemented - such as where this money would go, or how it would be used.

More importantly, what message does it send to other US companies that see China as a key market or supplier - from Apple and Tesla to the small furniture and toymakers? Is this a tax that firms will now face for doing business with China?

The 15% cut that Nvidia and AMD have agreed to is likely to hurt their bottom line, even if they earn substantial profits from sales to China.

Chip-makers plan their operations years in advance so this could dampen investor sentiment, which depends heavily on earnings and revenue projections.

But this deal may be a part of Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations. Just last week, he threatened 100% tariffs on foreign-made chips unless those companies invested in the US.

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick even said chips exports were being used in negotiations with China in return for access to rare-earth elements.

What about national security concerns?

That part is still unclear.

A US official told Reuters that the White House did not believe the sale of H20 and equivalent chips would compromise national security - despite the fact they were previously banned on these grounds.

National security experts and some lawmakers have long voiced concerns about the US selling AI chips to China, saying that Beijing could use them to gain an advantage in AI, as well as in military applications.

But others have argued that restricting chip sales to China does not help because it spurs Chinese innovation and greater competition. Rather, they want China to rely on US tech.

The latter argument seems to have won - for now.

That may well be the result of intense lobbying from Nvidia's chief executive, Jensen Huang. He met Trump at the White House last Wednesday, and it is thought that is when they agreed to this deal.

It was also Mr Huang's efforts that led to the reversal of the April ban on H20 sales to China.

Who wins with this deal?

The agreement is something of a win for China because it does want these chips.

Analysts say leading tech companies including ByteDance, Tencent and DeepSeek bought H20s before the US cut off access in April.

And it is a win for the US government, with analysts Bernstein Research telling the BBC it could make up to $2bn from chip sales to China.

There could be a further victory for Washington, if this leads to a deal on rare-earth elements with Beijing, which currently has a monopoly over the critical minerals.

But critics of the deal say they are alarmed about how this reflects on the White House.

This "is a very different US environment from the one that we've had in the past," says Ms Elms, the trade expert.

"I suppose, generously, you could call it the flexibility of the Trump White House in responding to requests."

Male rapists should "probably" lose the right to choose their gender, Nicola Sturgeon has said.

The former first minister, in an interview with ITV to mark the release of her memoir, also said she was partly to blame for the debate on gender recognition laws in Scotland losing "all sense of rationality".

Sturgeon came under intense pressure in 2023 after transgender offender Isla Bryson was remanded in a women's prison before being moved to a men's facility.

It came during a fierce debate over the proposals to make it easier for people in Scotland to change their legally-recognised sex.

Bryson was jailed for eight years in 2023 after being found guilty of two counts of rape.

The attacks were committed in Clydebank and Glasgow in 2016 and 2019.

Having initially been charged as Adam Graham, Bryson had self-identified as a woman while awaiting trial.

Bryson was initially remanded to Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling, but was later moved to a men's jail.

It led to a change in policy so that all newly-convicted or remanded transgender prisoners are initially placed in jails according to their birth sex.

Sturgeon repeatedly refused to call Bryson a man at the time.

Asked about the case by ITV, the former SNP leader said: "Isla Bryson identified as a woman.

"I think what I would say now is that anybody who commits the most heinous male crime against women probably forfeits the right to be the gender of their choice."

When pressed about her comment, she added it was "probably was not the best phrase to use".

The former first minister then described Bryson as a "biological male" and said she should have been "much more straightforward" in the past.

The Bryson controversy came during the debate about Scotland's proposed gender self-identification laws, which were passed by MSPs but ultimately blocked by the UK government.

Sturgeon told ITV: "We'd lost all sense of rationality in this debate. I'm partly responsible for that."

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

The case marked a major victory for gender critical campaigners over the Scottish government, and has had major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Britain.

Call to apologise

SNP MSP Michelle Thomson, who proposed an amendment to the gender recognition bill that would have halted gender recognition certificates being given to rapists, said Sturgeon's comments came "too late".

"Had she stopped to consider or engage with concerns regarding women's existing rights she would not have forced the SNP group to vote against my amendment to temporarily pause the granting of GRCs to rapists.

"Her decision made clear that their rights should trump those of the raped."

Thomson added: "This was not, and never will be, the actions of a feminist.

"For that reason I think that Nicola should really apologise for her failure to listen and act on the views of others."

Sturgeon's memoir, Frankly, will be published on Thursday.

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said: "Frankly, Nicola Sturgeon must be delusional if she thinks the women of Scotland will swallow this drivel."

He added: "Her absurd ideological belief in self-ID collapses with her belated mealy-mouthed admission that this rapist is a man, but she still can't bring herself to say sorry for all the pain and misery she has caused."

Nicola Sturgeon was never going to get through her book promotion without having to talk about gender – it was an issue that caused a real fissure in the SNP.

But what's notable is her position seems to have shifted a bit.

First of all, she concedes she should have paused the controversial gender legislation in Holyrood.

And she seems to be saying now that not everyone has the right to change their gender – specifically those who have committed sexual crimes.

During the passage of gender legislation (that was ultimately blocked by the UK government) loud voices in her own party openly called on her to do both these things.

But Nicola Sturgeon chose to approach the issue differently.

Michelle Thomson has gone public with her criticism of how this was all handled. But there are others in the SNP who can't quite believe the change of heart this interview has elicited.

A man missing for more than a week in the vast wilderness of Canada's province of British Columbia has been found after etching the word "help" on a rock and drawing "SOS" in the mud.

Andrew Barber was rescued by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on 8 August - nine days after the 39-year-old was reported missing - after a helicopter spotted his truck on a forest road, which helped narrow the search.

Police say he was severely dehydrated and had a leg injury but used a number of tactics to survive, including building a shelter and drinking pond water.

Staff Sgt Brad McKinnon of the Williams Lake RCMP said Mr Barber is doing "quite well".

He was reported missing on 31 July near McLeese Lake, some 365 miles (587km) north of Vancouver, where his truck had broken down.

A police helicopter spotted Mr Garber near his makeshift shelter on Friday after catching a glimpse of the truck.

"After over a week in the wilderness, our subject has been located alive during today's search from the air," Quesnel Search & Rescue, an area volunteer search and rescue group posted on Facebook.

"This outcome is the result of countless hours on the ground and in the air, using every resource and piece of technology available to us."

An image shared by the rescue group shows the shelter Mr Barber built for himself out of sticks and mud. It was propped up against the rock where he used dirt to write "help".

He was taken to hospital for treatment and has since been released.

Mr McKinnon told the Canadian Press news agency that Mr Barber "munched on whatever he could find" while he was in the woods.

"He was literally slurping unclean pond water to stay hydrated," he said. "The human body can go a long time without food, but water is a different situation."

Bob Zimmerman, president of Quesnel Search and Rescue, told CBC News that he wasn't sure Mr Barber "would have made it another 24 hours without us recovering him".

Yvette Cooper has said that some supporters of Palestine Action "don't know the full nature" of the group, following the mass arrest of more than 500 people at the weekend.

Defending the organisation's proscription, she stressed it was "not a non-violent organisation".

The home secretary said tens of thousands protested lawfully about the "horrendous events" in Gaza without involving Palestine Action, which was banned under terror legislation last month.

Palestine Action won permission to challenge the ban, with a hearing set for November, and Amnesty International described the arrests as "deeply concerning".

The proscription made membership of or support for Palestine Action a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, and happened after followers caused an estimated £7m of damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton.

On Saturday, hundreds of protesters simultaneously pulled out placards supporting Palestine Action outside Parliament at 13:00 BST. In all, 532 people were arrested.

The home secretary stood by her decision to proscribe Palestine Action, which she said had been "involved in violent attacks" and "major criminal damage against national security infrastructure".

She told the BBC: "There may be people who are objecting to proscription who don't know the full nature of this organisation, because of court restrictions on reporting while serious prosecutions are under way.

"But it's really important that no-one is in any doubt that this is not a non-violent organisation."

Cooper added there had been "clear security assessments and advice" ahead of the ban.

The human rights charity Amnesty International's chief executive Sacha Deshmukh suggested the response to the protest was disproportionate.

He said: "We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. These arrests demonstrate that our concerns were justified."

Asked whether there was any reconsideration of the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, the prime minister's official spokesman said it was based on strong security advice.

He told journalists Palestine Action had been considered to have committed three separate terrorism acts by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, although he declined to say what these were.

"Palestine action was proscribed based on strong security advice – following serious attacks the group has committed involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage," he said, adding: "Whilst many people may not yet know the reality of the organisation – those assessments are very clear."

The spokesman said the police had carried out their duties "without fear or favour", which he said was "a foundational principle of policing by consent".

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has warned Israel he will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel takes "substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza".

The move has been strongly criticised by Israel who said it "rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism".

The UN's humanitarian agency said on Friday that the amount of aid entering Gaza continues to be "far below the minimum required to meet people's immense needs", and last month, UN-backed global food security experts warned the "worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out".

Israel has continued to deny there is starvation in Gaza and has accused UN agencies of not picking up aid at the borders and delivering it.

Israel launched its offensive 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.

Since then, 61,430 people have been killed in Gaza as a result of Israel's military campaign, according to the health ministry.

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

Three children have been arrested on suspicion of murder after a man was found dead in Leysdown-on-Sea on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent Police has said.

Officers were called to Warden Bay Road shortly after 19:00 BST on Sunday, following reports of an altercation and a man being assaulted, the force said.

The man had sustained serious injuries and was confirmed dead at the scene. His next of kin have been informed, it added.

A 16-year-old girl and two boys, aged 14 and 15, remain in police custody, pending further inquiries, a police spokesperson said.

Kent Police appealed for any witnesses or anyone with information to get in touch.

Follow BBC Kent on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.

The founder of the UK's biggest toy chain, the Entertainer, is handing over control of the business to his 1,900 workers.

Gary Grant opened his first shop with his wife Catherine in 1981 when he was 23. He's now 66, and his multi-million pound empire spans 160 shops across the UK.

He is transferring 100% ownership of the family-owned business to an employee trust which means staff will get a share of the profits and a say in how the firm is run.

"If the business had been sold just for money that would not have been passing on the baton in the way in which the family would have wanted," Mr Grant told the BBC.

Most of the Entertainer's profits are made in the lead-up to Christmas. Mr Grant said this meant it would be too early to say whether staff would get a bonus for this financial year.

The "real rewards" should come for the year ending in January 2027, he says.

"That's when I think the staff will start to see something a little bit more meaningful."

Under an employee ownership trust, Mr Grant and his family will be financially rewarded, too. They will receive a payout for the transfer of their 100% shareholding, which will be taken out of the profits over time.

In its last set of annual accounts for the year to the end of January 2024, the Entertainer posted pre-tax profits of £6.7m.

"The Entertainer has thrived against all the odds," says Mr Grant, listing the financial crisis of 2008, the Covid pandemic, the decline of the High Street and the shift to online.

The Grant family's Christian ethos is central to how the business is run. Unlike other big retailers, it doesn't open on a Sunday and it donates 10% of its annual profits to charity.

Last year it expanded its partnership with Tesco to stock toys in more than 850 of the supermarket's stores. It also has concessions in 140 Matalan shops.

Mr Grant left school in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, with one O level. He was fired from his first job in a local bike shop but then he and his wife took out a loan to buy a toy shop down the road, despite the couple having no knowledge of the sector.

Two of their four children work in the company but Mr Grant says they have got "other plans for their lives" and after lengthy succession planning, which explored a number of exit options, the family chose an employee ownership trust.

He believes the move will preserve both the family's legacy as well as the family feel of the business. Nearly 400 staff have worked there for more than a decade, around 50 have clocked up more than 20 years of service.

"We would have been very concerned selling to a business that has a completely different set of values to the values of the Entertainer which we've built over the last 44 years. This is a win-win for everybody that we employ," he said.

Two years ago the family appointed its first external chief executive, Andrew Murphy, from the John Lewis Partnership, the UK's biggest and best-known employee-owned business.

In November, Mr Murphy told the BBC it had been forced to drop plans to open two new stores and freeze hiring at its head office after the government said it would raise National Insurance contributions for employers.

Next month, when the transfer is due to complete, Mr Murphy and his senior leadership team will have full independent control of the company.

"It's a huge responsibility to continue the legacy and not just deliver success but do it in a way which they (the family) would be proud," he told the BBC.

Every ownership model, he says, comes with its strengths and vulnerabilities. On the one hand, assets cannot be extracted and sold for personal gain giving everybody in the company a chance to earn an "upside" from what happens in the business. But it can limit the ability to raise external funding.

Mr Murphy says the Entertainer does not carry any long-term debt and has no urgent demand for a capital injection.

"Gary and the family have built the business over 44 years in a very measured, consistent, way," he says.

Asked what he would do after stepping back from his role as executive chairman, Mr Grant admits "switching the computer off" will be challenging, saying his wife often comments that "we've got four children and this business has been our fifth".

He has bought a narrowboat and intends to spend more time with his 10 grandchildren and his charity endeavours.

"I'm not sad with the way that we're leaving the business to go on from strength to strength. And if the business was failing in any way, that would be a much more difficult thing to be facing into. But it's nice. It's in strong financial health."

When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.

In the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman.

This is what Letby's barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has the backing of a panel of the best experts in the world who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed.

These extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong - but which? Who should we believe?

An alternative version of events

The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby's defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.

I have spent almost three years investigating the Letby case - in that time I have made three Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book on the subject. Yet, if true, the new evidence, presented by Mark McDonald in a series of high-profile press conferences and media releases, is shocking.

According to his experts, the prosecution expert medical case is unreliable.

Mark McDonald has not released the panel's full reports, which are currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body he needs to persuade to reopen Letby's case, but he has released summaries of the panel's findings.

Letby was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and attempted murder, and the jury in her original trial reached unanimous verdicts on three of those cases. That is a good indication of where the strongest medical evidence might lie.

To get a sense of the imperfections woven through both the prosecution and the defence arguments, it's worth looking at one of those cases in which the guilty verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O.

What really happened to Baby O?

Baby O was born in June 2016, one of triplet brothers. At Letby's trial, the jury was told that his death was in part the result of liver injuries, which the prosecution pathologist described as impact-type injuries - similar to those in a car accident.

As in other cases for which Letby was convicted, the prosecution said circumstantial evidence also tied her to the crime.

However, a paediatric pathologist who was not involved in the case but has seen Baby O's post-mortem report, says it was "unlikely" Baby O's liver injuries were caused by impact - as the prosecution claims.

"You can't completely rule out the possibility," says the pathologist, who does not want to be identified. "But in my view, the location of the injuries and the condition of the liver tissue itself don't fit with that explanation."

Which raises the obvious question - if the prosecution were wrong about Baby O's liver injuries, then why did he die?

Questions around air embolism

Letby was accused of injecting air into the blood of Baby O as well as that of other babies. This, the prosecution said, caused an air bubble and a blockage in the circulation known as air embolism.

During the trial the prosecution pointed to several pieces of evidence to make their case, including a 1989 academic study of air embolism in pre-term babies, which noted skin discolouration as one possible feature of it.

Prosecutors argued that these same skin colour changes were observed in several babies in the Letby case.

However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and one of the authors of that 1989 study, is now part of Letby's team of defence experts working with Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was misused.

He says skin discolouration has not featured in any reported cases of air embolism in babies where the air has entered the circulation via a vein – which is what the prosecution alleged happened in the Letby case.

In other words, the prosecution was wrong to use skin discolouration as evidence of air embolism.

It sounds significant. But is it enough to defeat the air embolism allegations?

As with many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not clear-cut.

The prosecution did not rely on skin discolouration alone to make their case for air embolism. And although there have not been any reported cases of skin discolouration in babies where air has entered the circulation via a vein, some critics have argued that the number of reported air embolism cases is small and that the theory is still possible.

To muddy the waters further, another of Mark McDonald's panel of experts has said that in fact there was post-mortem evidence of air embolism in the babies.

"We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them," says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine.

She believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism.

The air embolism theory, she said, was "highly speculative". But her remarks show the debate is far from settled.

The needle theory: another explanation?

There has been another explanation for Baby O's death.

In December 2024, Mark McDonald called a press conference in which one of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a doctor had accidentally pierced the baby's liver with a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to the baby's death.

Dr Taylor added: "I think the doctor knows who they are. I have to say from a personal point of view that if this had happened to me, I'd be unable to sleep at night knowing that what I had done had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse in jail, convicted of murder."

The doctor accused of causing the baby's death was subsequently identified as Stephen Brearey – one of Letby's principal accusers at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Mr Brearey says: "Given the ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect the confidentiality of those involved, I will not be making any further comment at this time."

It was a bombshell claim. But does the evidence support it?

One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O's medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other experts.

Another obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby's trial.

The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O's liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to agrees.

They told us: "These injuries weren't caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver."

Even if the needle had penetrated the baby's liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died - the needle was inserted after the baby's final and fatal collapse towards the end of the resuscitation.

When asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor's needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his "opinion has not substantially changed".

He said the "needle probably penetrated the liver" of Baby O, and "probably accelerated his demise".

Lack of consensus among the experts

The question of where this leaves the case presented by Mark McDonald's panel of experts when it comes to the needle theory is a difficult one to answer.

It would appear that among Letby's defenders, there is not consensus.

Consultant neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is one of the authors of the original report on which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined the evidence independently and has concluded that Baby O's liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of the baby's lungs.

However, he also says it was "pretty clear" a needle had punctured the liver during resuscitation.

When Dr Aiton was told that other experts, including the paediatric pathologist who spoke to the BBC, have examined the case of Baby O and said that it is implausible to conclude this happened, he said that there were two possibilities. Either the liver ruptured because of a needle or it ruptured spontaneously.

Dr Aiton's position appears to be that poor resuscitation caused the baby's liver injuries and whether it was a needle or not is "not important".

That is a contrast from what Dr Taylor said in that December press conference. And critics say Dr Aiton's account still does not explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place and why he needed such desperate resuscitation.

A summary report from Letby's expert panel appears to back further away from the needle theory. It says a needle "may have" punctured the liver.

Other experts, including the paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton's observation of hyper-inflated lungs would not explain Baby O's liver injuries.

Once again, the case illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish between plausible and implausible claims.

The debate around birth trauma

Since that press conference, other experts working for Letby's defence team have put forward another theory for Baby O's death. They say his liver injuries were the result of traumatic delivery at the time of birth.

Professor Modi says this was a "highly plausible cause".

But that has been contested from a surprising direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby's original defence expert and attended court throughout her trial.

He has been a staunch critic of her conviction, arguing her trial wasn't fair and that there is no definitive medical evidence that babies were deliberately harmed.

However, Dr Hall's view is that evidence for the birth trauma theory is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was born in good condition by caesarean section and there is no record of a traumatic delivery in the baby's medical notes.

"There's still no evidence that anyone did anything deliberately to harm Baby O," he adds. "However, something was going on with Baby O, which we haven't explained.

"We don't know what the cause of this is. But that doesn't mean that we therefore have to pretend that we know."

The insulin evidence

For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet there appears to be flawed expert evidence on both sides.

There were two other cases where the jury returned unanimous verdicts – the cases of Babies F and L.

The prosecution argued that both babies had been poisoned with insulin and highlighted blood tests that it said were clear evidence of this. For the prosecution, the insulin cases proved that someone at the Countess of Chester Hospital was harming babies.

Letby's defence have, meanwhile, marshalled numerous arguments against the insulin theory. One is that the blood test used - an immunoassay - is inaccurate and should have been verified. But even Letby's experts accept the test is accurate around 98% of the time.

Another argument is that premature babies can process insulin differently and that the blood test results are "within the expected range for pre-term infants". But the medical specialists we've spoken to are baffled by this claim and say it goes against mainstream scientific understanding.

Of course, mainstream opinion can be wrong. But it is difficult to tell because Letby's defence team have not shared the scientific evidence.

One of the experts behind the report – a mechanical engineer who carries out biomedical research – clarified that his analysis says the blood test results were "not uncommon". However, Letby's defence declined to show the BBC the published studies that support this claim.

Once again, the claims of both the prosecution and defence are not clear-cut.

Ultimately, the question of whether Letby's case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald's expert reports.

If he is successful and Lucy Letby's case is referred back to the Court of Appeal - that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true reckoning.

Lead image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA

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. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

The bones of a British man who died in a terrible accident in Antarctica in 1959 have been discovered in a melting glacier.

The remains were found in January by a Polish Antarctic expedition, alongside a wristwatch, a radio, and a pipe.

He has now been formally identified as Dennis "Tink" Bell, who fell into a crevasse aged 25 when working for the organisation that became the British Antarctic Survey.

"I had long given up on finding my brother. It is just remarkable, astonishing. I can't get over it," David Bell, 86, tells BBC News.

"Dennis was one of the many brave personnel who contributed to the early science and exploration of Antarctica under extraordinarily harsh conditions," says Professor Dame Jane Francis, director of the British Antarctic Survey .

"Even though he was lost in 1959, his memory lived on among colleagues and in the legacy of polar research," she adds.

It was David who answered the door in his family home in Harrow, London, in July 1959.

"The telegram boy said, 'I'm sorry to tell you, but this is bad news'," he says. He went upstairs to tell his parents.

"It was a horrendous moment," he adds.

Talking to me from his home in Australia and sitting next to his wife Yvonne, David smiles as stories from his childhood in 1940s England spill out.

They are the memories of a younger sibling admiring a charming, adventurous big brother.

"Dennis was fantastic company. He was very amusing. The life and soul of wherever he happened to be," David says.

"One of the funniest things was, and I still can't get over this, one evening when me, my mother and father came home from the cinema," David continues.

"And I have to say this in fairness to Dennis, he had put a newspaper down on the kitchen table, but on top of it, he'd taken a motorbike engine apart and it was all over the table," he says.

"I can remember his style of dress, he always used to wear duffel coats. He was just an average sort of fellow who enjoyed life," he adds.

Dennis Bell, nicked-named "Tink", was born in 1934. He worked with the RAF and trained as a meteorologist, before joining the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey to work in Antarctica.

"He was obsessed with Scott's diaries," David says, referring to Captain Robert Scott who discovered the South Pole and died on an expedition in 1912.

Dennis went to Antarctica in 1958. He was stationed for a two-year assignment at Admiralty Bay, a small UK base with about 12 men on King George Island, which is roughly 120 kilometres (75 miles) off the northern coast of the Antarctic Peninsula.

The British Antarctica Survey keeps meticulous records and its archivist Ieuan Hopkins has dug out detailed base camp reports about Dennis's work and antics on the harsh and "ridiculously isolated" island.

Reading aloud, Mr Hopkins says: "He's cheerful and industrious, with a mischievous sense of humour and fondness for practical jokes."

Dennis's job was to send up meteorological weather balloons and radio the reports to the UK every three hours, which involved firing up a generator in sub-zero conditions.

Described as the best cook in the hut, he was in charge of the food store over the winter when no supplies could reach them.

Antarctica felt even more cut off than it is today, with extremely limited contact with home. David recalls recording a Christmas message at BBC studios with his parents and sister Valerie to be sent to his brother.

He was best known for his love of the husky dogs used to pull sledges around the island, and he raised two litters of dogs.

He was also involved in surveying King George Island to produce some of the first mapping of the largely unexplored place.

It was on a surveying trip that the accident happened, a few weeks after his 25th birthday.

On 26 July 1958, in the deep Antarctic winter, Dennis and a man called Jeff Stokes left the base to climb and survey a glacier.

Accounts in the British Antarctic Survey records explain what happened next and the desperate attempts to rescue him.

The snow was deep and the dogs had started to show signs of tiredness. Dennis went on ahead alone to encourage them, but he wasn't wearing his skis. Suddenly he disappeared into a crevasse, leaving a hole behind him.

According to the accounts, Jeff Stokes called into the depths and Dennis was able to shout back. He grabbed onto a rope that was lowered down. The dogs pulled on the rope and Dennis was hitched up to the lip of the hole.

But he had tied the rope onto his belt, perhaps because of the angle he lay in. As he reached the lip, the belt broke and he fell again. His friend called again, but this time Dennis didn't reply.

"That's a story I shall never get over," says David.

The base camp reports about the accident are business-like.

"We heard from Jeff […] that yesterday Tink fell down a crevasse and was killed. We hope to return tomorrow, sea ice permitting," it continues.

Mr Hopkins explains that another man, called Alan Sharman, had died weeks earlier, and the morale was very low.

"The sledge has got back. We heard the sad details. Jeff has badly bitten frostbitten hands. We are not taking any more risks to recover," the report reads the day after the accident.

Reading the reports again, Mr Hopkins discovered that earlier in the season, it had been Dennis who'd made the coffin for Alan Sharman.

"My mother never really got over it. She couldn't handle photographs of him and couldn't talk about him," David says.

He recalls that two men on Dennis's base visited the family, bringing a sheepskin as a gesture.

"But there was no conclusion. There was no service, there was no anything. Just Dennis gone," David says.

About 15 years ago, David was contacted by Rod Rhys Jones, chair of the British Antarctic Monument Trust.

Since 1944, 29 people have died working on British Antarctic Territory on scientific missions, according to the trust.

Rod was organising a voyage for relatives of some of the 29 to see the spectacular and remote place where their loved ones had lived and died.

David joined the expedition, called South 2015.

"The captain stopped at the locations and give four or five hoots of the siren," he says.

The sea ice was too thick for David to reach his brother's hut on King George Island.

"But it was very, very moving. It lifted the pressure, a weight off my head, as it were," he says.

It gave him a sense of closure.

"And I thought that would be it," he says.

But on 29 January this year, a team of Polish researchers working from the Henryk Arctowski Polish Antarctic Station stumbled across something practically on their doorstep.

Dennis had been found.

Some bones were in the loose ice and rocks deposited at the foot of Ecology Glacier on King George Island. Others were found on the glacier surface.

The scientists explain that fresh snowfall was imminent, and they put down a GPS marker so their "fellow polar colleague" would not be lost again.

A team of scientists made up of Piotr Kittel, Paulina Borówka and Artur Ginter at University of Lodz, Dariusz Puczko at the Polish Academy of Sciences and fellow researcher Artur Adamek carefully rescued the remains in four trips.

It's a dangerous and unstable place, "criss-crossed with crevasses", and with slopes of up to 45 degrees, according to the Polish team.

Climate change is causing dramatic changes to many Antarctic glaciers, including Ecology Glacier, which is undergoing intense melting.

"The place where Dennis was found is not the same as the place where he went missing," the team explains.

"Glaciers, under the influence of gravity, move their mass of ice, and with it, Dennis made his journey," they say.

Fragments of bamboo ski poles, remains of an oil lamp, glass containers for cosmetics, and fragments from military tents were also collected.

"Every effort was made to ensure that Dennis could return home," the team say.

"It's an opportunity to reassess the contribution these men made, and an opportunity to promote science and what we've done in the Antarctic over many decades," says Rod Rhys Jones.

David still seems overwhelmed by the news, and repeats how grateful he is to the Polish scientists.

"I'm just sad my parents never got to see this day," he says.

David will soon visit England where he and his sister, Valerie, plan to finally put Dennis to rest.

"It's wonderful, I'm going to meet my brother. You might say we shouldn't be thrilled, but we are. He's been found - he's come home now."

Where is the heat coming from and will it be hot everywhere?

How long will the heatwave last?

Is there any rain on the way?

EasyJet has suspended one of its captains after he was reportedly seen roaming a luxury hotel drunk and naked.

The unnamed pilot was witnessed walking through common areas of a five-star resort in Cape Verde without any clothes on in the early hours of the morning on 5 August, after an extended drinking session in a bar, according to the Sun.

He was due to operate a return flight to Gatwick more than 36 hours later, but was grounded after the budget airline received complaints about the incident and a replacement pilot found.

An EasyJet spokesman told the BBC the pilot now faces an investigation and that the safety of passengers and crew was its "highest priority".

The captain arrived at the Melia Dunas Beach Resort and Spa in the West African island nation on 4 August and proceeded to begin drinking, the Sun reports.

At around 02:30 local time (04:30 BST) the following morning, hotel guests reportedly saw him strip off and wander into the reception, before moving onto the gym and spa, according to the newspaper.

"The pilot did not have a stitch on and reeked of alcohol," an anonymous source inside the airline was quoted by the paper as saying.

"Anyone who saw the pilot cavorting naked in the early hours on the day before a flight would not dream of getting on a plane with him at the controls."

He was scheduled to helm the 2,332-nautical-mile (4,318km) trip back to Gatwick on the afternoon of 6 August, but was removed from the flight.

An EasyJet spokesman said: "As soon as we were made aware, the pilot was immediately stood down from duty, in line with our procedures, pending an investigation.

"The safety of our passengers and crew is EasyJet's highest priority."

Temperatures are set to be well above average in many parts of the UK, and UV levels are expected to be high.

How can you protect your skin from the sun's rays and what should you do if you get burned?

What do the SPF numbers mean on sunscreen?

The most prominent number on sunscreen bottles is the sun protection factor or SPF.

The higher the number, the greater the protection it offers.

SPF tells you how much protection your sunscreen provides from UVB radiation. The number refers to how much UVB it allows in, not how much it blocks.

For example, a sunscreen with SPF 15 allows one-fifteenth of the sun's rays to reach your skin, or about 7%.

So it filters out about 93% percent of UVB rays while SPF 30 filters about 97%.

This means if you could stay in the sun for 10 minutes unprotected without burning, SPF 15 would in theory give you 15 times that protection, or two-and-a-half hours before you would burn.

The British Association of Dermatologists says sunscreen with SPF 30 is a "satisfactory form of sun protection in addition to protective shade and clothing".

It says sunscreen should be reapplied at least every two hours, regardless of its SPF.

What are UVA and UVB and what do the star ratings mean?

Many brands also carry a star rating from one to five.

This tells you the percentage of UVA radiation that is absorbed by the sunscreen in comparison to how much UVB is absorbed. The more stars the better.

UVA and UVB refer to different wavelengths of radiation from the sun that enter the Earth's atmosphere.

UVA is associated with ageing of the skin and pigmentation as well as skin cancer. It can affect human skin even through glass.

UVB causes sunburn, and is linked to particular types of skin cancer - basal cell carcinoma (the most common type) and malignant melanoma.

A low SPF sunscreen could have a high star rating if the ratio of UVA to UVB protection is the same as in a higher SPF product.

Ideally, you want a sunscreen with a high SPF and a high star rating.

How effective is the best sunscreen?

These levels of protection assume sunscreen has been applied in ideal conditions.

In reality, most people do not apply sunscreen perfectly, and it can rub off with sweat or while in water.

Experts think most people only apply half the recommended quantity.

You should not use sunscreen which is past its expiry date as it may be less effective.

EU guidance states that sunscreen should only be marketed as having sun protection of "50+" and not the ratings of 80 or 100 which can be found in some countries.

It thinks these could be misleading about how much extra protection they provide: SPF 50 provides about 98% protection, while SPF 100 would provide less than 100%.

No product provides 100% protection from the sun's rays so the advice is that everyone should cover up and seek shade when the sun is strongest.

What about 'once-a-day' sunscreens?

There are lots of "extended wear" sunscreens on the market that advertise themselves as being for use "once a day". Many claim to offer protection for up to eight hours - if applied correctly.

But some dermatologists recommend that these products should still be applied at least every two hours, like any other sunscreen, since the risk that you may have missed a spot - or that it will rub or wash off in that time - are too high.

A Which? report in 2016 criticised four of these products for not providing the protection promised. It found that after six to eight hours, the average protection offered decreased by 74%.

But this claim was rejected by some of the manufacturers, who said their own testing had produced different results.

• Top sunscreens fail protection tests, Which? says

What should you do if you get sunburned?

Sunburn results in hot and sore skin which may peel after a few days. In extreme cases, skin can blister.

It usually gets better within a week or so, but there are things you can do to ease the symptoms.

The NHS recommends getting out of the sun as soon as possible, and keeping burned skin covered to protect it from the sun until it has fully healed.

A cool shower or a damp towel can help, as can moisturising aftersun products, painkillers and drinking plenty of water. Ask your pharmacist for advice.

You should not put petroleum jelly or ice on sunburned skin. You should resist scratching the burned areas and avoid tight-fitting clothes.

Contact your GP or NHS 111 if your skin is blistered or swollen or you have other symptoms of heat exhaustion or heatstroke.

Regularly getting sunburned can increase the risk of skin cancer.

How bad were the last six promoted teams, really?

How many points do you need to avoid relegation in the Premier League?

Does Championship performance matter?

A fast start is crucial

Is Premier League relegation all down to money?

'Leeds look to data' - how promoted clubs are trying to buck relegation trend

'Burnley better prepared this time around'

'Renewed optimism in Sunderland'

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced the UK will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets certain conditions, including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted furiously to the announcement, saying the decision rewarded "Hamas's monstrous terrorism".

What would it mean if recognition does go ahead, and what difference would it make?

What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?

Palestine is a state that does and does not exist.

It has a large degree of international recognition, diplomatic missions abroad and teams that compete in sporting competitions, including the Olympics.

But due to the Palestinians' long-running dispute with Israel, it has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army. Due to Israel's military occupation, in the West Bank, the Palestinian authority, set up in the wake of peace agreements in the 1990s, is not in full control of its land or people. Gaza, where Israel is also the occupying power, is in the midst of a devastating war.

Given its status as a kind of quasi-state, recognition is inevitably somewhat symbolic. It will represent a strong moral and political statement but change little on the ground.

But the symbolism is strong. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy pointed out during his speech at the UN on Tuesday, "Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution".

He went on to cite the 1917 Balfour Declaration - signed by his predecessor as foreign secretary Arthur Balfour - which first expressed Britain's support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

But that declaration, Lammy said, came with a solemn promise "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Supporters of Israel have often pointed out that Lord Balfour did not refer explicitly to the Palestinians or say anything about their national rights.

But the territory previously known as Palestine, which Britain ruled through a League of Nations mandate from 1922 to 1948, has long been regarded as unfinished international business.

Israel came into being in 1948, but efforts to create a parallel state of Palestine have foundered, for a multitude of reasons.

As Lammy said, politicians "have become accustomed to uttering the words 'a two-state solution'".

The phrase refers to the creation of a Palestinian state, alongside Israel, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, broadly along the lines that existed prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

But international efforts to bring about a two-state solution have come to nothing and Israel's colonisation of large parts of the West Bank, illegal under international law, has turned the concept into a largely empty slogan.

Who recognises Palestine as a state?

The State of Palestine is currently recognised by 147 of the UN's 193 member states.

At the UN, it has the status of a "permanent observer state", allowing participation but no voting rights.

Australia has become the latest country to say it will recognise Palestinian Statehood at the next UN General Assembly in September - after similar announcements from France, Japan, Canada and the UK, on some conditions.

New Zealand said it would consider its position on recognition of a Palestinian state in August, ahead of a formal consideration of the issue in September.

If the UK and France do recognise a Palestinian state next month, Palestine would have the support of four of the UN Security Council's five permanent members - the other two being China and Russia.

This will leave the US, Israel's strongest ally by far, in a minority of one.

US Vice-President JD Vance has reiterated the US has no plans to recognise a Palestinian state, citing a lack of functional government.

Washington has recognised the Palestinian Authority, currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas, since the mid-1990s but has stopped short of recognising an actual state.

Several US presidents have expressed their support for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. Under his two administrations, US policy has leaned heavily in favour of Israel.

Without the backing of Israel's closest and most powerful ally, it is impossible to see a peace process leading to an eventual two-state solution.

Why is the UK doing it now?

Successive British governments have talked about recognising a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process, ideally in conjunction with other Western allies and "at the moment of maximum impact".

To do it simply as a gesture, the governments believed, would be a mistake. It might make people feel virtuous, but it would not actually change anything on the ground.

But events have clearly forced the current government's hand.

The scenes of creeping starvation in Gaza, mounting anger over Israel's military campaign and a major shift in British public opinion - all of these have influenced government thinking.

The clamour, among MPs and even the cabinet front bench, has become deafening.

At a Commons debate last week, Lammy was bombarded from all sides by questions asking why the UK was still not recognising a Palestinian state.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting summed up the views of many MPs when he urged the government to recognise Palestine "while there is still a state of Palestine left to recognise".

But the UK has not simply followed the lead set by France's Emmanuel Macron last week or the governments of Ireland, Spain and Norway last year.

Sir Keir has chosen to make his pledge conditional: Britain will act unless the government of Israel takes decisive steps to end the suffering in Gaza, reach a ceasefire, refrain from annexing territory in the West Bank - a move symbolically threatened by Israel's parliament the Knesset last week - and commit to a peace process that results in a two-state solution.

Downing Street knows there is virtually no chance of Netanyahu committing himself in the next six weeks to that kind of peace process. He has repeatedly ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state.

So British recognition of Palestine is certainly coming.

For all Netanyahu's implacable opposition, Sir Keir is hoping this is indeed a "moment of maximum impact".

But the Britain in 2025 is not the Britain of 1917 when the Balfour Declaration was signed. Its ability to bend others to its will is limited. It is hard to know, right now, what the impact will actually be.

US President Donald Trump has said homeless people must "move out" of Washington DC as he vowed to tackle crime in the city, while the mayor pushed back against the White House likening of the capital to Baghdad.

"We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital," he posted on Sunday. The Republican president also trailed a news conference for Monday about his plan to make the city "safer and more beautiful than it ever was before".

Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, said: "We are not experiencing a crime spike."

Trump signed an order last month making it easier to arrest homeless people, and he last week ordered federal law enforcement into the streets of Washington DC.

"The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY," Trump wrote on his social media site Truth Social on Sunday.

"We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong."

Alongside photos of tents and rubbish, he added: "There will be no 'MR. NICE GUY.' We want our Capital BACK. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

The specifics of the president's plan are not yet clear, but in a 2022 speech he proposed moving homeless people to "high quality" tents on inexpensive land outside cities, while providing access to bathrooms and medical professionals.

On Friday, Trump ordered federal agents - including from US Park Police, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and the US Marshals Service - into Washington DC to curb what he called "totally out of control" levels of crime.

A White House official told National Public Radio that up to 450 federal officers were deployed on Saturday night.

The move comes after a 19-year-old former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) was assaulted in an alleged attempted carjacking in Washington DC.

Trump vented about that incident on social media, posting a photo of the bloodied victim.

Mayor Bowser told MSNBC on Sunday: "It is true that we had a terrible spike in crime in 2023, but this is not 2023.

"We have spent over the last two years driving down violent crime in this city, driving it down to a 30-year low."

She criticised White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller for dubbing the US capital "more violent than Baghdad".

"Any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false," Bowser said.

Washington DC's homicide rate remains relatively high per capita compared to other US cities, with a total of 98 such killings recorded so far this year. Homicides have been trending higher in the US capital from a decade ago.

But federal data from January suggests that Washington DC last year recorded its lowest overall violent crime figures - once carjacking, assault and robberies are incorporated - in 30 years.

On Saturday, Trump announced plans on Truth Social to host a news conference at the White House on Monday, "which will, essentially, stop violent crime in Washington, DC".

In another post on Sunday he said the event at 10:00 EDT (14:00 GMT) would address ending "crime, murder and death" in the city, as well as its "physical renovation".

He described Bowser as "a good person who has tried", adding that despite her efforts crime continues to get "worse" and the city becomes "dirtier and less attractive".

Community Partnership, an organisation that works to reduce homelessness in Washington DC, told Reuters news agency that the city of 700,000 residents had about 3,782 people homeless on any given night.

Most were in public housing or emergency shelters, but about 800 were considered "on the street".

As a district, rather than a state, Washington DC is overseen by the federal government, which has the power to override some local laws.

The president controls federal land and buildings in the city, although he would need Congress to assume federal control of the district.

In recent days, he has threatened to take over the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department, which Bowser argued was not possible.

"There are very specific things in our law that would allow the president to have more control over our police department," Bowser said. "None of those conditions exist in our city right now."