At least 48 Palestinians have been killed in a series of Israeli air strikes in northern Gaza overnight, a local hospital says.

The Indonesian hospital reported that 22 children and 15 women were among the dead after a number of homes in Jabalia town and refugee camp were hit. A video shared online appeared to show at least a dozen bodies on the floor there.

The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports. It had warned residents of Jabalia and neighbouring areas to evacuate on Tuesday night after a Palestinian armed group launched rockets into Israel.

It came as the UN's humanitarian affairs chief urged members of the UN Security Council to take action to "prevent genocide" in Gaza.

Speaking at a meeting in New York on Tuesday, Tom Fletcher accused Israel of "deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians".

He called on Israel to lift its 10-week blockade on Gaza and criticised the Israeli-US plan to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid in the territory.

The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, told the council that foreign aid was being used to help Hamas's war effort.

Meanwhile, US Special Envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler said they would travel to Qatar for fresh negotiations on a possible ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has threatened to expand its military offensive in Gaza this week unless Hamas agrees to release the 58 hostages it is still holding.

On Tuesday, a massive Israeli air strike on the European hospital's compound in southern Gaza killed at least 28 people, according to local officials.

Israeli media reports said the target was Mohammed Sinwar, who is believed to have become the leader of Hamas in Gaza after his brother Yahya was killed by Israeli forces last October.

The Israeli military described it as "a precise strike on Hamas terrorists who were operating in a command-and-control centre" underneath the hospital.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,908 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

A Los Angeles judge has resentenced two brothers who are serving life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion, making them eligible for parole.

Judge Michael Jesic gave Erik and Lyle Menendez a new sentence of 50 years to life. A decision on their potential release will be made at a parole hearing in June.

The pair have acknowledged killing Kitty and Jose Menendez, but said they acted out of self-defence after years of abuse and have since been rehabilitated.

Prosecutors have argued the brothers meticulously planned the shotgun killings to access their parents' fortune, are yet to take responsibility and should not be released.

The notorious case, which has prompted books, documentaries and dramas, still divides America.

The brothers gave an emotional statement - via video - to the court at Tuesday's hearing.

The court heard relatives detail how the case affected their family, and pleading for the judge to allow the siblings' release from prison.

The brothers' cousin, Anamaria Baralt, who has been close with them since they were children, told the judge they deserved a "second chance at life".

"It's been a nightmare," she said. "I am desperate for this process to be over."

At times, both Erik and Lyle appeared emotional as family recounted how their crimes have impacted them. Both wiped their eyes at times, with Erik covering his mouth or putting his head in his hands at other moments.

Ms Baralt speaks with Erik and Lyle frequently, she told the court, and testified that they've taken "ownership of their actions".

She said they admitted they tried to steer their previous trial - with Lyle telling her he'd asked a witness to lie when testifying.

"They are very different men from the boys they were," she said.

Chimpanzees in Uganda have been observed using medicinal plants - in multiple ways - to treat open wounds and other injuries.

University of Oxford scientists, working with a local team in the Budongo Forest, filmed and recorded incidents of the animals using plants for first aid, both on themselves and occasionally on each other.

Their research builds on the discovery last year that chimps seek out and eat certain plants to self-medicate.

The scientists also compiled decades of scientific observations to create a catalogue of the different ways in which chimpanzees use "forest first aid".

Researchers say the study, which is published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, adds to a growing body of evidence that primates, including chimps, orangutans and gorillas, use natural medicines in a number of ways to stay healthy in the wild.

• Chimpanzees ‘self-medicate’ with healing plants
• Wounded orangutan seen using plant as medicine

Lead researcher Elodie Freymann explained there was "a whole behavioural repertoire that chimpanzees use when they're sick or injured in the wild - to treat themselves and to maintain hygiene".

"Some of these include the use of plants that can be found here," she explained. "The chimpanzees dab them on their wounds or chew the plants up, and then apply the chewed material to the open injury."

The researchers studied footage of a very young, female chimpanzee chewing plant material and applying it to an injury on its mother's body.

They also found records of chimpanzees tending to the wounds of other animals they weren't related to. This is particularly exciting, explained Dr Freymann, "because it adds to the evidence that wild chimpanzees have the capacity for empathy".

Some of the hundreds of written observations that Dr Freymann and her colleagues studied came from a log book at the field station in the forest site, which is northwest of the capital, Kampala.

This record of anecdotal evidence dates back to the 1990s – local field staff, researchers and visitors have written in, describing any interesting behaviour they have observed.

There are stories in that book of leaf-dabbing on injuries and chimps helping other chimps to remove snares from their limbs.

There are some surprisingly human-like hygiene habits: One note describes a chimpanzee using leaves to wipe itself after defecating.

This team of researchers has previously identified some of the plants that chimpanzees sought out and ate when they were injured. The scientists took samples of those plants, tested them and discovered most had antibacterial properties.

Chimpanzees are not the only non-human apes with apparent knowledge of plant-based medicine. A recent study showed a wild oranguatan using chewed leaf material to heal a facial wound.

Scientists think studying this wild ape behaviour - and understanding more about the plants the chimps use when they are sick or injured - could help in the search for new medicines.

"The more we learn about chimpanzee behaviour and intelligence, the more I think we come to understand how little we as humans actually know about the natural world," Dr Freymann told BBC News.

"If I were plopped down here in this forest with no food and no medicine, I doubt that I'd be able to survive very long, especially if I were injured or sick."

"But chimpanzees thrive here because they know how to access the secrets of this place, and how to find all they need to survive from their surroundings."

Gary Lineker has deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: "Zionism explained in two minutes" and featured an illustration of a rat.

A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.

Lineker's agent told the BBC the presenter immediately deleted the post when he learned about the image's symbolism.

The charity Campaign Against Antisemitism said it was submitting a complaint to the BBC.

Lineker's agent said: "Whilst viewing and reposting a video, Gary did not notice a rodent emoticon added by the author of the post. Although if he had, he would not have made any connection. The repost has been removed."

In response to Lineker's post, Campaign Against Antisemitism posted on X: "Nothing to see here. Just Gary Lineker's Instagram account sharing an anti-Israel video misrepresenting Zionism, complete with a rat emoji."

The group added that his "continued association with the BBC is untenable. He must go".

The BBC, when asked if it had any comment on Lineker's now-removed post, responded by referring to its guidance on personal use of social media.

Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and thus support for the modern state of Israel.

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews said they felt "the BBC should ask him to leave now rather than allowing him to dictate his own terms", according to the Daily Mail.

"He has caused great offence with this video – particularly with his egregious use of a rat emoji to illustrate Zionists."

BBC News has asked the body about its comments and if it has anything further to add.

Barrister Simon Myerson KC, who chairs the Leeds Jewish Representative Council, posted a message to the outgoing Match of the Day presenter, which said: "Posting racism - bad. Deleting racist post - good. Not acknowledging error when paid enormous amount of public money pa by BBC - pathetic."

'I know where I stand'

Last month, Lineker spoke to BBC presenter Amol Rajan about his views on the Middle East.

The sports presenter said: "I know where I stand on this... What's going on there [Gaza], the mass murder of thousands of children is probably something we should have a little opinion on."

The war in Gaza was triggered by the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others taken hostage.

Israel launched a mass military offensive on Gaza in response which has killed 52,908 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Rajan responded to Lineker's comment that the BBC "as a whole needs to be impartial about it", to which Lineker replied: "Why? It needs to be factual."

The journalist said the BBC, as a public broadcaster, needs to be "impartial about conflict", to which Lineker replied: "It wasn't impartial about Ukraine and Russia... I think facts are the most important thing."

Lineker hitting headlines

Lineker was temporarily suspended from the BBC in March 2023 after an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the then-government's new asylum policy.

Reflecting on his tweets in the interview with Rajan, Lineker said he did not regret taking the position he did, but that he would not do it again because of the "damage" it did to the BBC.

In February, Lineker made headlines when he was among 500 other high-profile figures who signed an open letter urging the BBC to reinstate a documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, to BBC iPlayer.

The documentary was pulled from the streaming service in February after it emerged its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official.

After concerns were raised, the BBC took down the film while it carried out further due diligence. The corporation has apologised and admitted "serious flaws" in the making of the film and the matter is still subject to an internal investigation.

Lineker and the BBC jointly announced in November that he would be stepping down from the flagship football programme, although he will still host World Cup and FA Cup coverage.

On top of his presenting roles, Lineker is also the co-founder of Goalhanger Podcasts, which make the successful The Rest is History series and its spin-offs about Politics, Football, Entertainment and Money.

The Rest is Football podcast, featuring Lineker, Alan Shearer and Micah Richards, is also on BBC Sounds.

Airbnb says users will now be able to book luxury services like personal trainers, massages and chefs on its redesigned app as it continues to expand beyond its main short-term rentals business.

"People choose hotels for their services. People choose Airbnbs for the space... now, we're giving you the best of both worlds", the company's chief executive Brian Chesky said in a statement.

It comes just weeks after the firm signalled bookings may slow in the US as President Trump's unpredictable trade policies hit consumer sentiment.

Despite hosting more than two billion guests since its launch in 2008, Airbnb has also faced challenges in recent years with some cities moving to ban short lets.

Airbnb's new services will initially be available in 260 cities, with the company saying they will cost from below $50 (£37.57).

The luxury offerings, which include spa treatments, photographers and makeup artists, can also be booked by people who are not staying in Airbnbs.

The company's revamped app also includes an updated experiences tab, allowing users to book bespoke tours and activities. That service was first launched in 2016.

The new hotel-like features reflect the changing needs of tourists, Gary Bowerman, director of travel marketing firm Check-in Asia told the BBC.

"Travellers are now thinking much more about how to customise the trip for themselves, not just the actual functional parts of how they get there and where they stay."

Another feature of the new app is an originals tab, which offers exclusive experiences across the world.

This includes playing beach volleyball in Rio de Janeiro with Olympian Carol Solberg or spending a Sunday with National Football League superstar Patrick Mahomes.

Bespoke options like this are part of a wider trend as tourists seek out off-the-beaten path experiences, said luxury travel consultant Anastasia Oriordan.

"There are so many people that have travelled and done so many things, that the benchmark or the goalpost for unique experiences is constantly moving."

Co-op customers should see stocks on shelves start to return to more normal levels this weekend, the company said, after it announced it was switching its online ordering system for suppliers back on after a cyber-attack.

The hack resulted in payment problems, widespread shortages of goods in shops, and compromised customer and staff data.

The hackers, who use the name DragonForce, also claimed to be responsible for a similar attack on Marks and Spencer (M&S) and an attempted hack of Harrods earlier this month.

Co-op said it was bringing its systems "gradually back online in a safe and controlled manner."

Earlier this month, cyber criminals infiltrated the Co-op's IT networks apparently trying to extort money from the grocery chain.

The company moved to limit the impact of the attack by shutting down some IT systems, including parts of its supply chain and logistics operations, resulting in disruption to deliveries.

Shoppers have shared images of empty shelves and fridges.

But Co-op says this should improve from the weekend in-store and online, as it works with its suppliers to restock.

It says all payments systems, including contactless payments, are back up and running.

In a statement, the company thanked "colleagues, members, partners and suppliers for their support so far."

In a message sent to its suppliers earlier this week, and first reported by The Grocer, the Co-op asked for patience as it gets its systems back up and running.

It warned of likely increased "volatility" in order volumes.

The cyber criminals claim to have the private information of 20 million people who signed up to Co-op's membership scheme, but the firm would not confirm that number.

M&S admitted on Tuesday that some customer data had been stolen in the hack of its systems.

Just before Christmas, in a private dining room in the upmarket Charlotte Street Hotel in the heart of London's Soho, the BBC's director general gathered some of the UK's leading TV creatives and executives for lunch. As they ate, surrounded by kaleidoscopic-patterned wallpaper and giant artworks, they were also chewing over the future survival of their own industry.

As solutions were thrown around to what many see as an acute funding crisis in the age of global streaming, one of the invitees suggested, in passing, that BBC Studios (the corporation's commercial content-producing arm) could merge with Channel 4 to create a bigger, more powerful force to compete with the likes of Disney Plus, Netflix and Amazon.

As another diner knocked down the idea, I'm told that Tim Davie, the BBC's DG, asked why it was so ridiculous.

I relate that not because it has come to fruition. It hasn't. Nor even to suggest that the Director General supports the idea.

Instead the story illustrates the belief, among some within the broadcasting industry, that nothing should be off the table when it comes to contemplating how to ensure the survival of British-originated and British-focused TV as we know it.

Many of the people I spoke to for this piece didn't want to be quoted. But Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former Chairman of ITV, told me that what he termed the current "generous spread" of British broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) will need some consolidation or, at the very least, more cooperation in future.

"We're in danger of having no public service broadcasting within a decade, certainly within 20 years," he says. "We don't have a strategy for their survival. It's that serious. The regulators need to start thinking about it.

"Mergers may well be part of the answer. There should be fewer companies in the future."

Lord Vaizey, who was Culture Minister under David Cameron, put it baldly. "ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 should merge.

"The UK only has room for two domestic broadcasters."

Others, however, argue that distinctiveness is good for viewers. Channel 5 President Sarah Rose told me she "couldn't disagree with Ed Vaizey more" – calling it a "Doomsday prophecy".

Channel 5 is profitable, she tells me; it invests in smaller production companies and offers plurality for British audiences. By having just one commercial channel, "You're taking the funnel from three to one types of content for British audiences."

Channel 4 also rejects the suggestion of any merger. Its outgoing CEO Alex Mahon argues that, "The unique structure of competition between our publicly funded and commercially funded broadcasters" is what makes UK public service TV "so excellent".

And yet the days of turning on your TV and finding an electronic programme guide listing channels – with BBC1 and BBC2 at the top, then ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – are disappearing. The proposed date for the dawn of a new era is 2035; the end of traditional terrestrial TV as we know it.

When the increasingly expensive contracts to provide broadcast channels and digital terrestrial services like Freeview come to an end, the UK's broadcasters are likely to pivot to offering digital-only video on demand. (However this won't happen without a campaign to ensure older people are protected, as well as rural and low-income households who may not have high quality internet access.)

But if the aerials are turned off in 2035, is this the moment TV as we know it changes forever? If it becomes a battle between online-only British streamers and their better-funded US rivals, can the Brits survive? And, crucially, what will audiences be watching?

How TV could look by 2035

Flash forward to switching on the television in 2035 and there will of course have been certain technological transformations – perhaps more immersive viewing experiences or some shows viewed through augmented reality glasses. What's highly likely, though, is that the communal big screen will still be a staple, (albeit probably voice-activated by then).

It's a shift that has already begun with YouTube viewers changing their viewing habits and moving to the bigger screen. In 2024, for the first time, TV sets were the most-used device for watching content on the video sharing site at home, according to recent data from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board (Barb). In all, 41% of YouTube viewing was done on TV sets, ahead of 31% on smartphones.

With YouTube an apparently unstoppable force, in ten years' time it could well become the go-to viewing for the majority.

"We are likely to continue to see a shift in the share of viewing time and advertising revenue towards globally-scaled players and user-generated content platforms like YouTube and TikTok," all within the next five years, according to Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M.

There'll also likely be Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon. In other words, the global players, based in the US, many of which also have other revenue streams (whether parks, computer hardware or a vast shopping platform).

Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M tells me the UK broadcasters are facing what could be an "existential" battle against US-based media companies with "wildly different business models".

The shift to streaming TV has, she says, "enabled large globally-scaled players to get even bigger and pour money into content that they can put in front of worldwide audiences".

The "big players with big pockets" already pay for a bespoke button on certain remote controls, or their own content tile front and centre on the homepage on smart TVs.

Ms Scott-Dawkins believes that in the future it will be "a position of strength" to own the operating systems themselves, as well as the media that people are watching on them. For example, this might mean Apple showing its films and television series on Apple TVs and iPhones, or Amazon showing its own productions via its Fire devices, or Google through its own computers and phones.

Questions of revenue

Part of the problem is that the UK terrestrial channels can't compete financially with the streamers. Netflix, for example, is valued at $472bn (£356bn).

The BBC has lost 30% of its income – or £1bn a year – in real terms since 2010, as the licence fee has become worth less. ITV's share price hasn't yet recovered since the advertising downturn in 2022, despite its vast production arm, ITV Studios, boosting its earnings before tax to £299m.

Meanwhile, Channel 4's recorded a deficit of £52m for 2023. Alex Mahon told Parliament last month, "We will pretty much break even in the year".

Some TV insiders think the solution will be one gateway or app for all public service content: one place to find all shows from BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5.

Alex Mahon recently told a newspaper that there needs to be "more collaboration" between the UK broadcasters – a way of "making sure we're not duplicating the same technology".

ITV has spent hundreds of millions to create ITVX, its streaming platform for the Netflix-age. Channel 4 took a pioneering approach to its own digital transformation, launching 4oD back in 2006; the first broadcaster in the world to offer television content on-demand.

But while its current £1bn a year revenue enables it to compete as a significant content creator, this may not be enough to sustain a modern distribution platform with all the associated investment costs into the long term, according to some insiders.

Lord Hall, the former BBC Director General, is among those arguing that it's not sustainable for individual broadcasters to continue going it alone. "The notion that everyone has their own portals when you are competing against the huge streamers is not going to survive into the future," he says.

'One big streamer under iPlayer'?

Could the solution be for BBC iPlayer, which has been built with public money, to become the portal for the other British public service media content, too? It would be a single place where viewers could find ITV's The Chase, Channel 4's The Great British Bake Off and Channel 5 News, alongside BBC's The Traitors. This was one idea suggested to me by multiple TV insiders. "One big streamer under iPlayer", as one TV executive described it to me, "a modern public service streaming service".

Part of their argument is that it's the fastest growing streaming service in the UK – and the only existing platform of plausible scale to compete.

With political support and the right deal, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could potentially get behind sharing tech (after all, the streaming service Freely, which launched last year, already hosts their content with the BBC's and others).

But the idea of branding this all under the BBC iPlayer is – unsurprisingly – not something that commercial broadcasters would likely entertain, according to conversations I've had.

Lord Hall believes, "It could be branded differently... It would be a very good step."

He says: "The public would have to get used to the fact that BBC material would be free of advertising, and other parts of the platform would have adverts."

If the idea of a shared streaming service sounds familiar, that's because it was proposed years ago. Project Kangaroo was a plan by BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 for a UK video-on-demand joint venture. Think an early rival to Netflix.

But the UK's Competition Commission blocked the project in 2009 because of concerns it could harm competition in the emerging VoD market.

Other regulators across Europe have also blocked mergers: In France, the TFI and M6 channels were prevented from merging. Two of the largest TV and radio broadcasters in the Netherlands, which would have combined eight national TV channels and four national radio stations, were also stopped for competition reasons.

Any form of merger between different public service broadcasters would be subject to the same scrutiny. It's perhaps why Sir Peter Bazalgette is calling on UK politicians and regulators to focus on creating a strategy – or risk the end of British TV as we know it.

Nostalgia versus a changing world

Today, people in the UK spend more time watching traditional broadcasters than they do streaming services. Figures show 87% of people age four and above watch the traditional broadcasters each month and they spend an average of 137 minutes a day doing so. By comparison, 78% of people watch a streaming service and they spend only 40 minutes a day doing so.

If this does shift and the pattern reverses, TV producers and executives may be worried. But does it really matter to audiences?

Netflix is already making the types of shows that may have previously been made by the likes of the BBC (Adolescence, Toxic Town and Baby Reindeer are all very British stories made by the streamer). So what is the problem? (Aside from the obvious point that you need a subscription to watch Netflix.)

Ms Rose argues that the picture is "much more complex". Creatives involved in those shows often cut their teeth in public service TV, she says – one of benefits of the traditional broadcasters is, she believes, that it is a pipeline of talent.

Sir Peter Bazalgette argues that they're needed more than ever in our AI age to serve as "a gold standard of trusted news for our democracy, amid the online Tower of Babel."

He also argues for programmes that reflect "our shared values and national conversation". Would a US-based streamer have chosen to make Mr Bates v the Post Office (ITV), for example, or 'It's A Sin' (Channel 4) – stories that are uniquely British and reflect who we are?

Backing producers to take risks is, says Lord Hall, "exactly what the BBC should be doing – but of course [it] has been doing less because the licence fee has been consistently cut".

Start of the 'martini streaming age'

Ultimately, the American streamers are here to stay; they're spending billions and their UK operations are often led by British executives who are supportive of Britain's public service broadcasting scene.

I have also picked up a sense from those inside Netflix that the company is often used as a battering ram to persuade the government that the UK's traditional broadcasters need more protections.

Some have also been critical of the BBC for, as they see it, wanting everything on its own terms: "'We want you to give us your money for co-productions, but the BBC will make all the creative decisions'," is how one insider put it to me, unfairly or not.

In 2018, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos was invited to the BBC's New Broadcasting House in London. Invitees recall that he talked warmly about how influential the BBC's iPlayer had been to the success of Netflix, describing how impressed he had been by a piece of kit that had got British viewers used to getting their video on demand.

With more than 17 million Brits now subscribed to Netflix, there is a certain irony to that.

Today, as the BBC's Director General Tim Davie starts to position the BBC ahead of the renewal of the corporation's charter after 2027, the TV landscape is changing fast. And the challenges are clear.

Lord Hall tells me: "Our lives will be enriched by having not only what the streamers can offer, but also what the public service broadcasters can bring. It's unthinkable not to build on what the BBC and others can deliver".

Sir Peter Bazalgette predicts that, "Small doesn't cut it," adding that, "The winners will have to be big enough to [both] afford high end dramas for winning subscribers and maintain large back catalogues to keep subscribers happy."

He says we now live in "the 'martini' streaming age - any time, any place, anywhere".

The question is whether the leaders of the public service broadcasters can forge the right plan to safeguard their industry in that age.

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 war's horrors multiply. The dead, the pieces of the dead. The dying. The starving. More and more of them now – all the weight of human suffering witnessed by my brave colleagues in Gaza.

The urge to avert our gaze can be overpowering. But the cameramen who work for the BBC cannot turn away, and on Tuesday one of them became a casualty himself. For their safety we do not reveal the names of our colleagues in Gaza.

Our cameraman was not seriously wounded, but that was a matter of luck. The Israeli bombs launched into the car park of the European Hospital in Khan Younis killed and wounded dozens.

The Israelis say the leader of Hamas was hiding in a command-and-control compound under the hospital. The army said it conducted a "precise strike" - and blamed Hamas for"cynically and cruelly exploiting the civilian population in and around the hospital". Hamas denies such charges.

At the time of the attack, families whose sick children are to be evacuated from Gaza were gathering in the hospital. There were also families waiting to meet children returning from treatment abroad.

One of the fathers was with our BBC colleague and was wounded by the bombs. He has now been discharged from hospital. Harrowing images show our journalist trying to console the man's terrified children.

Warning: This report contains distressing images.

Much of my colleague's work in recent days has focused on the plight of malnourished children.

A short time before the blast, I messaged to thank him for his work filming, with immense sensitivity, the story of Siwar Ashour. This was his response:

"Siwar's story broke something in all of us, and working on it was one of the most painful things I've ever had to do. But I knew her face, her name, and her story had to be seen – had to be heard."

Siwar is five months old and acutely malnourished, a child whose large, brown eyes dominate her shrunken frame. They follow her mother Najwa's every move. On Tuesday Najwa sent us a video message from her room at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza.

She wanted the world to know how much she loves her child. "I wish she could receive the treatment she needs, to recover fully, and return as she was before – to play like other children, to grow and gain weight like other children. She is my first child, and as her mother, I'm deeply heartbroken for her."

In the past few days Siwar has developed a skin infection. Sores have appeared on her hands. She also has a severe gastrointestinal condition. The battle is to keep nourishment inside her. Her immune system is fighting the deprivation caused by the Israeli blockade.

The baby's cry is weak, yet it is full of urgency, the sound of a life struggling for its survival. Siwar can only drink a special milk formula due to severe allergies.

On Tuesday there was some better news. Medics at the nearby Jordanian Field Hospital managed to find some of the formula she needs. It is a small amount but they plan to send more.

In the coming days there are plans to bring sick children to the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Here in Amman there are already several Gaza families who have children being treated for illness or war injuries in local hospitals. These evacuations are co-ordinated with the Israelis who do background checks on the parents travelling with their children.

In January we filmed the arrival of Abdelrahman al-Nashash and his mum Asma. Abdelrahman lost his leg in an Israeli bombing.

For four months they've lived in a place with food and shelter. A safe place.

When we visited them on Tuesday Asma called her children and their grandmother in Gaza.

Grandmother Najwa spoke of the war all around them. "The rockets are everywhere, firing over our heads. The food. Life is very bad. There is no flour. The prices are very high."

The children waved and blew kisses to their mother.

Afterwards, Asma told us: "I don't know what to say. I am very grateful for my mum for all she is doing for me. I wish I can return back to find them safe and in good health." She broke down and was silent.

It is only through the eyes of a mother who sees her children trapped, frightened and hungry from a safe distance, that it is possible to imagine why anyone would want to go back to Gaza.

With additional reporting by Alice Doyard, Suha Kawar and Nik Millard.

Svitlana says her daughter loved her school in Poland.

"Even when we moved to another area, she didn't want to change schools," says the 31-year-old Ukrainian mother. "She liked it so much. There was no bullying."

Now she says the atmosphere at the school – and in Poland overall – has changed.

"Two weeks ago, she came home and said "One boy said to me today, 'Go back to Ukraine'." Svitlana was astonished.

She is one of dozens of Ukrainians living in Poland who have told the BBC that anti-Ukrainian sentiment has risen considerably in recent months.

Many described experiencing abuse on public transport, bullying in schools and xenophobic material online.

A polarising presidential election campaign has added to the tension, with the first round of voting taking place on Sunday.

The day after Svitlana's daughter was told to go back to Ukraine, the abuse became even worse.

"Girls from the class above started complaining about her speaking Ukrainian. Then they pretended to fall to the ground shouting 'Missile! Get down!' and laughing," Svitlana says. "She came home crying."

A Russian missile had slammed into Svitlana's hometown in Ukraine days before, killing scores of civilians, including children. Her daughter was traumatised.

Svitlana – not her real name did not want to be identified as she fears reprisals. She showed us screenshots of messages with school staff where she complains about her daughter's treatment.

She said she had noticed attitudes changing towards Ukrainians in other places, too: "At work, many people have been saying Ukrainians come here and behave badly. And my Ukrainian friends say they want to go home because Polish people don't accept us. It's frightening to live here now."

According to government statistics, at least 2.5 million Ukrainians live in Poland, comprising almost 7% of the total population of Poland.

When the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, there was an outpouring of compassion from Poles. "It was amazing. Every day people were calling, asking, 'How can we help?'" says activist Natalia Panchenko, head of the Warsaw-based 'Stand with Ukraine' Foundation.

"Some of them organised humanitarian convoys or brought refugees here. They gave their houses, food, everything they have – and their hearts, too."

Three years later, Natalia says she believes the majority of Poles still support Ukraine. But some don't – and her organisation has noticed an upsurge of anti-Ukrainian online abuse that began several months ago.

"Then it started to come to real life," she says. "Recently, we have more and more of these kinds of situations… xenophobic [abuse] of people working in shops or hotels just because they speak with a Ukrainian accent."

Natalia says that many Ukrainian refugees are traumatised. "These groups of women and children are in Poland because of the war, very often their relatives are on the front line, in captivity or dead... and this is the group of people being targeted."

Research suggests that Poland's public opinion of Ukrainians is indeed worsening. According to a March 2025 poll by the respected CBOS Centre, just 50% of Poles are in favour of accepting Ukrainian refugees, a fall of seven percentage points in four months. Two years ago, the figure was 81%.

Around a million Ukrainians are officially registered as having arrived after the start of the full-scale invasion. Poland spends 4.2% of its GDP on Ukrainian refugees.

Ukraine has become a hot-button political issue in Poland's crucial presidential election campaign.

Far-right populist Slawomir Mentzen, currently polling third, is virulently anti-Ukrainian and supports an "agreement" with Russia's Vladimir Putin.

In second place is conservative Karol Nawrocki, who opposes EU and Nato membership for Ukraine and financial assistance for refugees, but supports the war effort.

The most pro-Ukraine candidate is front-runner Rafal Trzaskowski from Prime Minister Donald Tusk's coalition, although even he has promised a reduction in social welfare for Ukrainians.

Trzaskowski has refrained from espousing his pro-Ukrainian credentials in order to attract the centrist vote in the elections, says political analyst Marcin Zaborowski.

"He's responding to the change in public attitudes. The initial enthusiasm for supporting war victims is disappearing, negative sentiments are taking over and it's not an entirely comfortable issue for him."

Another far-right candidate, Grzegorz Braun, is under investigation by police for tearing down a Ukrainian flag from a city hall building during an election rally in April. Braun, who is polling at just 3%, regularly fulminates against what he calls the "Ukrainisation of Poland".

Last week, the Polish government warned of an "unprecedented attempt" by Russia to interfere in the Polish elections by spreading "false information among Polish citizens online". Moscow denies all allegations of election interference.

Michal Marek, who runs an NGO that monitors disinformation and propaganda in Poland, offers some examples of the anti-Ukraine material being circulated on social media.

"The main narratives are that Ukrainians are stealing money from the Polish budget, that Ukrainians do not respect us, that they want to rob and kill us and are responsible for the war," he says.

"This information starts in Russian-speaking Telegram channels, and, after that, we see the same photos and the same text just translated by Google Translate. And they are pushing [the material] into the Polish infosphere."

Mr Marek links such disinformation directly with the increase in anti-Ukraine sentiment in Poland, and says an increasing number of Poles are becoming influenced by propaganda.

"But we will only see the effect after the election - what percentage of Poles want to vote for openly pro-Russian candidates."

US President Donald Trump has said he will lift sanctions on Syria, ahead of an expected meeting with its leader Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Trump has agreed to "say hello" to Syria's interim president on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia as part of his tour of the Middle East, the White House said.

The announcement of the lifting of sanctions was met with elation in the Syrian capital of Damascus, where cheering, dancing and celebratory gunfire were heard.

The sanctions had previously blocked any foreign financing, including aid, from reaching Syria and were originally intended to put pressure on the dictatorship of now-ousted President Bashar al-Assad.

Trump said the policy change would give Syria "a chance at greatness", telling an investment forum in Saudi Arabia's Riyadh, "it's their time to shine."

Syria's Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani celebrated the decision as a "pivotal turning point for the country" in an interview with the country's state news agency, Sana.

The country looks forward to a future of "stability, self-sufficiency and genuine reconstruction after years of a destructive war", he added.

Ninety percent of Syria's population were left under the poverty line at the end of Assad's regime and its new government has been pushing for an end to sanctions since Assad was overthrown in December.

Al-Sharaa told the BBC in an interview late last year that Syria was not a threat to the world and called for sanctions to be lifted.

He also called for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist group who overthrew Assad, to be de-listed as a terrorist organisation. It is designated as one by the UN, US, EU and UK, among many others, as it started as a splinter group of al-Qaeda, which it broke away from in 2016.

Al-Sharaa repeated these calls at a joint press conference with France's President Emmanuel Macron last week, saying "these sanctions were imposed on the previous regime because of the crimes it committed, and this regime is gone."

The Syrian leader has promised to protect ethnic minorities since his Sunni Islamist group led the rebel offensive that overthrew Bashar al-Assad's regime in December after 13 years of devastating civil war.

However, the mass killings of hundreds of civilians from Assad's minority Alawite sect in the western coastal region in March, during clashes between the new security forces and Assad loyalists, has hardened fears among minority communities.

There have also been deadly clashes between Islamist armed factions, security forces and fighters from the Druze religious minority.

The US's announcement is a major boost for al-Sharaa, and also marks a significant foreign policy shift for the US, which previously said it would not lift sanctions on Syria until issues such as minority rights progressed in the country.

Trump said his announcement followed a request from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

"Oh, what I do for the Crown Prince," the US leader said, adding, "I like him too much."

The pair met on Tuesday on Trump's first stop of his tour of the Middle East, where they jointly announced a $142bn (£107bn) arms deal.

Former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who served under former President Barack Obama, applauded the Trump administration's move to lift sanctions.

"I visited Syria three months ago and the country is simply devastated after the 13-year civil war. It needs to rebuild, it needs reconstruction, it needs foreign financing to do that," he told the BBC.

"So removing the sanctions, that will enable international capital flows to go into Syria from Gulf states, from other Arab states and from different aid agencies is absolutely vital."

The tour of the Arab Gulf states will also see Trump visit Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Just before Christmas, in a private dining room in the upmarket Charlotte Street Hotel in the heart of London's Soho, the BBC's director general gathered some of the UK's leading TV creatives and executives for lunch. As they ate, surrounded by kaleidoscopic-patterned wallpaper and giant artworks, they were also chewing over the future survival of their own industry.

As solutions were thrown around to what many see as an acute funding crisis in the age of global streaming, one of the invitees suggested, in passing, that BBC Studios (the corporation's commercial content-producing arm) could merge with Channel 4 to create a bigger, more powerful force to compete with the likes of Disney Plus, Netflix and Amazon.

As another diner knocked down the idea, I'm told that Tim Davie, the BBC's DG, asked why it was so ridiculous.

I relate that not because it has come to fruition. It hasn't. Nor even to suggest that the Director General supports the idea.

Instead the story illustrates the belief, among some within the broadcasting industry, that nothing should be off the table when it comes to contemplating how to ensure the survival of British-originated and British-focused TV as we know it.

Many of the people I spoke to for this piece didn't want to be quoted. But Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former Chairman of ITV, told me that what he termed the current "generous spread" of British broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) will need some consolidation or, at the very least, more cooperation in future.

"We're in danger of having no public service broadcasting within a decade, certainly within 20 years," he says. "We don't have a strategy for their survival. It's that serious. The regulators need to start thinking about it.

"Mergers may well be part of the answer. There should be fewer companies in the future."

Lord Vaizey, who was Culture Minister under David Cameron, put it baldly. "ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 should merge.

"The UK only has room for two domestic broadcasters."

Others, however, argue that distinctiveness is good for viewers. Channel 5 President Sarah Rose told me she "couldn't disagree with Ed Vaizey more" – calling it a "Doomsday prophecy".

Channel 5 is profitable, she tells me; it invests in smaller production companies and offers plurality for British audiences. By having just one commercial channel, "You're taking the funnel from three to one types of content for British audiences."

Channel 4 also rejects the suggestion of any merger. Its outgoing CEO Alex Mahon argues that, "The unique structure of competition between our publicly funded and commercially funded broadcasters" is what makes UK public service TV "so excellent".

And yet the days of turning on your TV and finding an electronic programme guide listing channels – with BBC1 and BBC2 at the top, then ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – are disappearing. The proposed date for the dawn of a new era is 2035; the end of traditional terrestrial TV as we know it.

When the increasingly expensive contracts to provide broadcast channels and digital terrestrial services like Freeview come to an end, the UK's broadcasters are likely to pivot to offering digital-only video on demand. (However this won't happen without a campaign to ensure older people are protected, as well as rural and low-income households who may not have high quality internet access.)

But if the aerials are turned off in 2035, is this the moment TV as we know it changes forever? If it becomes a battle between online-only British streamers and their better-funded US rivals, can the Brits survive? And, crucially, what will audiences be watching?

How TV could look by 2035

Flash forward to switching on the television in 2035 and there will of course have been certain technological transformations – perhaps more immersive viewing experiences or some shows viewed through augmented reality glasses. What's highly likely, though, is that the communal big screen will still be a staple, (albeit probably voice-activated by then).

It's a shift that has already begun with YouTube viewers changing their viewing habits and moving to the bigger screen. In 2024, for the first time, TV sets were the most-used device for watching content on the video sharing site at home, according to recent data from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board (Barb). In all, 41% of YouTube viewing was done on TV sets, ahead of 31% on smartphones.

With YouTube an apparently unstoppable force, in ten years' time it could well become the go-to viewing for the majority.

"We are likely to continue to see a shift in the share of viewing time and advertising revenue towards globally-scaled players and user-generated content platforms like YouTube and TikTok," all within the next five years, according to Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M.

There'll also likely be Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon. In other words, the global players, based in the US, many of which also have other revenue streams (whether parks, computer hardware or a vast shopping platform).

Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M tells me the UK broadcasters are facing what could be an "existential" battle against US-based media companies with "wildly different business models".

The shift to streaming TV has, she says, "enabled large globally-scaled players to get even bigger and pour money into content that they can put in front of worldwide audiences".

The "big players with big pockets" already pay for a bespoke button on certain remote controls, or their own content tile front and centre on the homepage on smart TVs.

Ms Scott-Dawkins believes that in the future it will be "a position of strength" to own the operating systems themselves, as well as the media that people are watching on them. For example, this might mean Apple showing its films and television series on Apple TVs and iPhones, or Amazon showing its own productions via its Fire devices, or Google through its own computers and phones.

Questions of revenue

Part of the problem is that the UK terrestrial channels can't compete financially with the streamers. Netflix, for example, is valued at $472bn (£356bn).

The BBC has lost 30% of its income – or £1bn a year – in real terms since 2010, as the licence fee has become worth less. ITV's share price hasn't yet recovered since the advertising downturn in 2022, despite its vast production arm, ITV Studios, boosting its earnings before tax to £299m.

Meanwhile, Channel 4's recorded a deficit of £52m for 2023. Alex Mahon told Parliament last month, "We will pretty much break even in the year".

Some TV insiders think the solution will be one gateway or app for all public service content: one place to find all shows from BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5.

Alex Mahon recently told a newspaper that there needs to be "more collaboration" between the UK broadcasters – a way of "making sure we're not duplicating the same technology".

ITV has spent hundreds of millions to create ITVX, its streaming platform for the Netflix-age. Channel 4 took a pioneering approach to its own digital transformation, launching 4oD back in 2006; the first broadcaster in the world to offer television content on-demand.

But while its current £1bn a year revenue enables it to compete as a significant content creator, this may not be enough to sustain a modern distribution platform with all the associated investment costs into the long term, according to some insiders.

Lord Hall, the former BBC Director General, is among those arguing that it's not sustainable for individual broadcasters to continue going it alone. "The notion that everyone has their own portals when you are competing against the huge streamers is not going to survive into the future," he says.

'One big streamer under iPlayer'?

Could the solution be for BBC iPlayer, which has been built with public money, to become the portal for the other British public service media content, too? It would be a single place where viewers could find ITV's The Chase, Channel 4's The Great British Bake Off and Channel 5 News, alongside BBC's The Traitors. This was one idea suggested to me by multiple TV insiders. "One big streamer under iPlayer", as one TV executive described it to me, "a modern public service streaming service".

Part of their argument is that it's the fastest growing streaming service in the UK – and the only existing platform of plausible scale to compete.

With political support and the right deal, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could potentially get behind sharing tech (after all, the streaming service Freely, which launched last year, already hosts their content with the BBC's and others).

But the idea of branding this all under the BBC iPlayer is – unsurprisingly – not something that commercial broadcasters would likely entertain, according to conversations I've had.

Lord Hall believes, "It could be branded differently... It would be a very good step."

He says: "The public would have to get used to the fact that BBC material would be free of advertising, and other parts of the platform would have adverts."

If the idea of a shared streaming service sounds familiar, that's because it was proposed years ago. Project Kangaroo was a plan by BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 for a UK video-on-demand joint venture. Think an early rival to Netflix.

But the UK's Competition Commission blocked the project in 2009 because of concerns it could harm competition in the emerging VoD market.

Other regulators across Europe have also blocked mergers: In France, the TFI and M6 channels were prevented from merging. Two of the largest TV and radio broadcasters in the Netherlands, which would have combined eight national TV channels and four national radio stations, were also stopped for competition reasons.

Any form of merger between different public service broadcasters would be subject to the same scrutiny. It's perhaps why Sir Peter Bazalgette is calling on UK politicians and regulators to focus on creating a strategy – or risk the end of British TV as we know it.

Nostalgia versus a changing world

Today, people in the UK spend more time watching traditional broadcasters than they do streaming services. Figures show 87% of people age four and above watch the traditional broadcasters each month and they spend an average of 137 minutes a day doing so. By comparison, 78% of people watch a streaming service and they spend only 40 minutes a day doing so.

If this does shift and the pattern reverses, TV producers and executives may be worried. But does it really matter to audiences?

Netflix is already making the types of shows that may have previously been made by the likes of the BBC (Adolescence, Toxic Town and Baby Reindeer are all very British stories made by the streamer). So what is the problem? (Aside from the obvious point that you need a subscription to watch Netflix.)

Ms Rose argues that the picture is "much more complex". Creatives involved in those shows often cut their teeth in public service TV, she says – one of benefits of the traditional broadcasters is, she believes, that it is a pipeline of talent.

Sir Peter Bazalgette argues that they're needed more than ever in our AI age to serve as "a gold standard of trusted news for our democracy, amid the online Tower of Babel."

He also argues for programmes that reflect "our shared values and national conversation". Would a US-based streamer have chosen to make Mr Bates v the Post Office (ITV), for example, or 'It's A Sin' (Channel 4) – stories that are uniquely British and reflect who we are?

Backing producers to take risks is, says Lord Hall, "exactly what the BBC should be doing – but of course [it] has been doing less because the licence fee has been consistently cut".

Start of the 'martini streaming age'

Ultimately, the American streamers are here to stay; they're spending billions and their UK operations are often led by British executives who are supportive of Britain's public service broadcasting scene.

I have also picked up a sense from those inside Netflix that the company is often used as a battering ram to persuade the government that the UK's traditional broadcasters need more protections.

Some have also been critical of the BBC for, as they see it, wanting everything on its own terms: "'We want you to give us your money for co-productions, but the BBC will make all the creative decisions'," is how one insider put it to me, unfairly or not.

In 2018, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos was invited to the BBC's New Broadcasting House in London. Invitees recall that he talked warmly about how influential the BBC's iPlayer had been to the success of Netflix, describing how impressed he had been by a piece of kit that had got British viewers used to getting their video on demand.

With more than 17 million Brits now subscribed to Netflix, there is a certain irony to that.

Today, as the BBC's Director General Tim Davie starts to position the BBC ahead of the renewal of the corporation's charter after 2027, the TV landscape is changing fast. And the challenges are clear.

Lord Hall tells me: "Our lives will be enriched by having not only what the streamers can offer, but also what the public service broadcasters can bring. It's unthinkable not to build on what the BBC and others can deliver".

Sir Peter Bazalgette predicts that, "Small doesn't cut it," adding that, "The winners will have to be big enough to [both] afford high end dramas for winning subscribers and maintain large back catalogues to keep subscribers happy."

He says we now live in "the 'martini' streaming age - any time, any place, anywhere".

The question is whether the leaders of the public service broadcasters can forge the right plan to safeguard their industry in that age.

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.

A Los Angeles judge has resentenced two brothers who are serving life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion, making them eligible for parole.

Judge Michael Jesic gave Erik and Lyle Menendez a new sentence of 50 years to life. A decision on their potential release will be made at a parole hearing in June.

The pair have acknowledged killing Kitty and Jose Menendez, but said they acted out of self-defence after years of abuse and have since been rehabilitated.

Prosecutors have argued the brothers meticulously planned the shotgun killings to access their parents' fortune, are yet to take responsibility and should not be released.

The notorious case, which has prompted books, documentaries and dramas, still divides America.

The brothers gave an emotional statement - via video - to the court at Tuesday's hearing.

The court heard relatives detail how the case affected their family, and pleading for the judge to allow the siblings' release from prison.

The brothers' cousin, Anamaria Baralt, who has been close with them since they were children, told the judge they deserved a "second chance at life".

"It's been a nightmare," she said. "I am desperate for this process to be over."

At times, both Erik and Lyle appeared emotional as family recounted how their crimes have impacted them. Both wiped their eyes at times, with Erik covering his mouth or putting his head in his hands at other moments.

Ms Baralt speaks with Erik and Lyle frequently, she told the court, and testified that they've taken "ownership of their actions".

She said they admitted they tried to steer their previous trial - with Lyle telling her he'd asked a witness to lie when testifying.

"They are very different men from the boys they were," she said.

Rosemary Coogan is surrounded by a team of people pushing, pulling, squishing and squeezing her into a spacesuit.

It takes about 45 minutes to get all her gear on before a helmet is carefully lowered over her head.

The British astronaut is about to undergo her toughest challenge yet – assessing whether she is ready for a spacewalk. The test will take place in one of the largest pools in the world: Nasa's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

The pool – which is 12m deep (40ft) – contains a life-sized replica of the International Space Station (ISS), and a "spacewalk" here is as close as it gets to mimicking weightlessness on Earth.

"It's a big day," Rosemary says before the dive, which is going to last more than six hours. "It's very physically intense – and it's very psychologically intense."

But Rosemary doesn't seem too fazed. She smiles and waves as the platform she's standing on is slowly lowered into the water.

Being an astronaut was Dr Rosemary Coogan's dream from a young age, she says. But it was a dream that seemed out of reach.

"At the careers day at school, you don't tend to meet astronauts," Rosemary says. "You don't get to meet people who've done it, you don't really get to hear their stories."

So she decided to study the stars instead, opting for a career in astrophysics. But when the European Space Agency (ESA) announced it was looking for new recruits to go to space, Rosemary applied and was chosen from more than 22,000 people.

ESA aims to get Rosemary to the International Space Station (ISS) by 2030. She'll be following in the footsteps of Britons Helen Sharman, who visited the Soviet's Mir Space Station in 1991, and Tim Peake who launched to the ISS in 2015.

Rosemary has spent the last six months training at the Johnson Space Center. As well as exploring the outside of the submerged ISS, she can head inside the orbiting lab in another life-sized mock-up located in a huge hangar.

She takes us on a tour of the lab's interconnected modules. It feels very cramped, especially considering astronauts usually spend many months on board. But Rosemary reminds us about the spectacular views.

"It is an isolated environment, but I think this helps to give that kind of connection to being outside – to alleviate that sense of claustrophobia."

Rosemary's training here covers every aspect of going to space - including learning how to use the onboard toilet.

"The lower part is where you put your solid waste," she says, pointing to a loo in a small cubicle that looks like something you might find at a very old campsite. "And this funnel here is actually attached to an air suction system, and that is where you put your liquid waste."

Female astronauts have the option of suppressing their periods using drugs, Rosemary says, but can also opt not to.

"There's essentially a filter that you put on top of the cone in which you urinate and it's to stop any particles, any blood, from going into the urine system."

Urine needs to be kept separate because it's purified and treated to be re-used as drinking water, she explains.

Back in the pool, divers are constantly adjusting Rosemary's buoyancy in the water to make the experience as close as possible to microgravity.

She moves around painstakingly, making sure she's always attached to the submerged structure using two hooks.

Every hand-hold is carefully chosen along the bars on the outside of each module. They're in exactly the same positions as the ones on the real thing, vital muscle memory if she gets to carry out a spacewalk 200 miles (322km) above the Earth.

It's slow and difficult work, requiring plenty of upper body strength and physical effort in the hot, bulky spacesuit.

"You do a lot of mental preparation – you really think through every single movement," Rosemary explains. "You have to be really efficient with your energy. You don't want to do something and realise it wasn't quite right and have to do it again."

Rosemary is working alongside another astronaut to complete a list of space station repairs and maintenance for the test. Her every move is monitored by a team in a control room overlooking the pool. They're in constant communication with her as she works through her tasks.

Former space station commander Aki Hoshide, from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, is on hand for advice. He has completed four spacewalks and says it's a steep learning curve for new astronauts.

"When we first start out, there's so much information thrown at you, so many skills that you have to learn and show and demonstrate," he says. "It is baby steps, but they are moving forward – and I can see their excitement every time they come here and jump in the pool."

Rosemary takes us to see a Saturn V – the rocket that took the Apollo astronauts to the Moon in 1969. More than 50 years on, Nasa is planning an imminent return to the lunar surface with its Artemis programme. European astronauts will join later missions. With an expected 35-year space career ahead, Rosemary may one day get the chance to become the first Briton to walk on the Moon.

"It's incredibly exciting that we, as humanity, are going back to the Moon, and of course, any way that I could be a part of that, I would be absolutely delighted. I think it's absolutely thrilling," she says.

After six gruelling hours underwater, Rosemary is nearing the end of her spacewalk test – but then she's thrown a curve ball.

In the control room, we hear her call out for a comms check with her astronaut partner who's working on another part of the space station. But she's met with silence.

On a video screen, we can see he's motionless. Rosemary doesn't know it, but he's been asked to pretend to lose consciousness. Rosemary's job is to reach him, check his condition – and tow him back to the airlock.

After so long under water, we can see how exhausted she is – but working slowly and steadily, she gets him safely to the airlock.

"Rosemary has the endurance of a champion. She crushed it today," says Jenna Hanson, one of Nasa's spacewalk instructors who's been assessing Rosemary. "We're really happy with where she's at – she's doing awesome."

The spacewalk is finally over. Rosemary's platform is hoisted out of the pool and the support team help her out of her suit. As her helmet is removed, we can see she's clearly very tired, but still smiling.

"It was a challenging one, it really was, and a challenging rescue," she tells us, "But yeah, it was a really enjoyable day."

Rosemary's hard work is bringing her ever closer to her dream of getting to space.

"It's amazing," Rosemary says, "If I could do that for the real space station - where you can look out and see the stars and see the Earth at the same time - that would just be the cherry on top."

Chimpanzees in Uganda have been observed using medicinal plants - in multiple ways - to treat open wounds and other injuries.

University of Oxford scientists, working with a local team in the Budongo Forest, filmed and recorded incidents of the animals using plants for first aid, both on themselves and occasionally on each other.

Their research builds on the discovery last year that chimps seek out and eat certain plants to self-medicate.

The scientists also compiled decades of scientific observations to create a catalogue of the different ways in which chimpanzees use "forest first aid".

Researchers say the study, which is published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, adds to a growing body of evidence that primates, including chimps, orangutans and gorillas, use natural medicines in a number of ways to stay healthy in the wild.

• Chimpanzees ‘self-medicate’ with healing plants
• Wounded orangutan seen using plant as medicine

Lead researcher Elodie Freymann explained there was "a whole behavioural repertoire that chimpanzees use when they're sick or injured in the wild - to treat themselves and to maintain hygiene".

"Some of these include the use of plants that can be found here," she explained. "The chimpanzees dab them on their wounds or chew the plants up, and then apply the chewed material to the open injury."

The researchers studied footage of a very young, female chimpanzee chewing plant material and applying it to an injury on its mother's body.

They also found records of chimpanzees tending to the wounds of other animals they weren't related to. This is particularly exciting, explained Dr Freymann, "because it adds to the evidence that wild chimpanzees have the capacity for empathy".

Some of the hundreds of written observations that Dr Freymann and her colleagues studied came from a log book at the field station in the forest site, which is northwest of the capital, Kampala.

This record of anecdotal evidence dates back to the 1990s – local field staff, researchers and visitors have written in, describing any interesting behaviour they have observed.

There are stories in that book of leaf-dabbing on injuries and chimps helping other chimps to remove snares from their limbs.

There are some surprisingly human-like hygiene habits: One note describes a chimpanzee using leaves to wipe itself after defecating.

This team of researchers has previously identified some of the plants that chimpanzees sought out and ate when they were injured. The scientists took samples of those plants, tested them and discovered most had antibacterial properties.

Chimpanzees are not the only non-human apes with apparent knowledge of plant-based medicine. A recent study showed a wild oranguatan using chewed leaf material to heal a facial wound.

Scientists think studying this wild ape behaviour - and understanding more about the plants the chimps use when they are sick or injured - could help in the search for new medicines.

"The more we learn about chimpanzee behaviour and intelligence, the more I think we come to understand how little we as humans actually know about the natural world," Dr Freymann told BBC News.

"If I were plopped down here in this forest with no food and no medicine, I doubt that I'd be able to survive very long, especially if I were injured or sick."

"But chimpanzees thrive here because they know how to access the secrets of this place, and how to find all they need to survive from their surroundings."

Family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue of assisted dying, BBC research on plans to legalise the practice suggests.

The findings give a unique insight into how strongly many GPs feel about the proposed new law - and highlight how personal beliefs and experiences are shaping doctors' views on the issue.

BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.

More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour.

Some of the 500 GPs who told us they were against the law change called the bill "appalling", "highly dangerous", and "cruel". "We are doctors, not murderers," one said.

Of the 400 who said they supported assisted dying, some described the bill as "long overdue" and "a basic human right".

"We are keeping human bodies alive in the most inhumane manner," one said. They asked: "How do we ethically justify forcing these bodies to continue to exist in decrepitude?"

We cannot know whether the GPs who responded to the BBC are representative of all family doctors.

It comes as MPs will this week again debate proposed changes to the controversial bill, with a vote in parliament expected on whether to pass or block it next month.

If assisted dying does become legal in England and Wales, it would be a historic change for society.

Current laws prevent medics from helping any patient to carry out their wish to die. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying, but GPs are often a large part of the practice in other countries.

The BBC's research, carried out over a few weeks in March and April, is the first in-depth look at how GPs feel about the proposed new law.

Nine out of 10 GPs who said they were against legalising assisted dying worried terminally ill patients would consider it because they felt guilty about being a burden on their loved ones or the health service.

"The right to die becomes a duty to die for those who feel a burden on family," said one GP.

Another common concern was patients might be coerced. Some told us they had treated elderly people with family members they suspected of being more focussed on their inheritance than their relatives.

More than half of the group who opposed a law change said it would be against their religious beliefs.

They spoke about life being "sacred" and called assisted dying "sinful". Some referred to the commandment "thou shalt not kill".

Another argument from those who said they were against assisted dying was the health system should instead focus on improving end-of-life care.

One GP said creating an assisted dying law was "scandalous" when hospices were largely funded by charities rather than by the state.

Separately, on Tuesday the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that while the group "remains neutral" on the principle of assisted dying, it "just cannot support this bill".

In an interview with BBC's Newsnight, the college's president Dr Lade Smith cited a lack of requirements concerning the "unmet needs" of patients, and a shortage of psychiatrists to process requests.

"We're concerned that there isn't a requirement to think about any unmet needs a person might have. A person with a terminal illness... they may be in pain, they have difficulty with their housing, their finances because they haven't been able to work, they might feel lonely, isolated," Dr Smith said.

Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing said there was a "black hole" in the hospice budget and "we need better care not killing".

Dying with dignity

More than 400 GPs told us they supported a law change, with some describing feeling "traumatised" and "haunted" by watching people die in "severe pain or distress".

Of those who said they were in favour, more than nine in 10 respondents believed it could allow patients to have a dignified death.

Some shared personal experiences: telling us about watching their parents losing dignity or begging to die. One said their sick wife prayed every evening to not wake up in the morning.

Those who backed assisted dying often spoke about patient choice, arguing it was patronising not to let people decide how they wanted to die.

Wanting the option of an assisted death for themselves or their loved ones was another common reason for supporting the law.

"Personally, I would find this a comfort and I resent those who take this choice away from me," one told us.

'Unpredictable' timeframe

If assisted dying does become law in England and Wales, it would apply to certain terminally ill patients who were reasonably expected to die within six months.

But more than a quarter of all the GPs who responded told us they would rarely, or never be confident assessing if a patient was expected to die in that time frame.

"It's unpredictable even in the severely frail," one said.

No doctor would be obliged to work in assisted dying. Of the 1,000 GP respondents, more than 500 told us they would be willing to discuss assisted dying with a patient.

Nearly 300 would assess if a patient was eligible and 161 said they would prepare a substance for a patient to take to end their own life.

Legal risks

Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the BBC's research showed GPs had "real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying".

"These must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight," she said.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said GPs and other medics will "rightly be considering how they will navigate" the proposed law.

She said evidence from assisted dying laws in Australia and the US showed it could be carried out "safely and effectively, with far reaching benefits for end-of-life care and robust protections for both patients and doctors".

Additional reporting by Vicki Loader, Elena Bailey, Natalie Wright and Hannah Karpel

The war's horrors multiply. The dead, the pieces of the dead. The dying. The starving. More and more of them now – all the weight of human suffering witnessed by my brave colleagues in Gaza.

The urge to avert our gaze can be overpowering. But the cameramen who work for the BBC cannot turn away, and on Tuesday one of them became a casualty himself. For their safety we do not reveal the names of our colleagues in Gaza.

Our cameraman was not seriously wounded, but that was a matter of luck. The Israeli bombs launched into the car park of the European Hospital in Khan Younis killed and wounded dozens.

The Israelis say the leader of Hamas was hiding in a command-and-control compound under the hospital. The army said it conducted a "precise strike" - and blamed Hamas for"cynically and cruelly exploiting the civilian population in and around the hospital". Hamas denies such charges.

At the time of the attack, families whose sick children are to be evacuated from Gaza were gathering in the hospital. There were also families waiting to meet children returning from treatment abroad.

One of the fathers was with our BBC colleague and was wounded by the bombs. He has now been discharged from hospital. Harrowing images show our journalist trying to console the man's terrified children.

Warning: This report contains distressing images.

Much of my colleague's work in recent days has focused on the plight of malnourished children.

A short time before the blast, I messaged to thank him for his work filming, with immense sensitivity, the story of Siwar Ashour. This was his response:

"Siwar's story broke something in all of us, and working on it was one of the most painful things I've ever had to do. But I knew her face, her name, and her story had to be seen – had to be heard."

Siwar is five months old and acutely malnourished, a child whose large, brown eyes dominate her shrunken frame. They follow her mother Najwa's every move. On Tuesday Najwa sent us a video message from her room at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza.

She wanted the world to know how much she loves her child. "I wish she could receive the treatment she needs, to recover fully, and return as she was before – to play like other children, to grow and gain weight like other children. She is my first child, and as her mother, I'm deeply heartbroken for her."

In the past few days Siwar has developed a skin infection. Sores have appeared on her hands. She also has a severe gastrointestinal condition. The battle is to keep nourishment inside her. Her immune system is fighting the deprivation caused by the Israeli blockade.

The baby's cry is weak, yet it is full of urgency, the sound of a life struggling for its survival. Siwar can only drink a special milk formula due to severe allergies.

On Tuesday there was some better news. Medics at the nearby Jordanian Field Hospital managed to find some of the formula she needs. It is a small amount but they plan to send more.

In the coming days there are plans to bring sick children to the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Here in Amman there are already several Gaza families who have children being treated for illness or war injuries in local hospitals. These evacuations are co-ordinated with the Israelis who do background checks on the parents travelling with their children.

In January we filmed the arrival of Abdelrahman al-Nashash and his mum Asma. Abdelrahman lost his leg in an Israeli bombing.

For four months they've lived in a place with food and shelter. A safe place.

When we visited them on Tuesday Asma called her children and their grandmother in Gaza.

Grandmother Najwa spoke of the war all around them. "The rockets are everywhere, firing over our heads. The food. Life is very bad. There is no flour. The prices are very high."

The children waved and blew kisses to their mother.

Afterwards, Asma told us: "I don't know what to say. I am very grateful for my mum for all she is doing for me. I wish I can return back to find them safe and in good health." She broke down and was silent.

It is only through the eyes of a mother who sees her children trapped, frightened and hungry from a safe distance, that it is possible to imagine why anyone would want to go back to Gaza.

With additional reporting by Alice Doyard, Suha Kawar and Nik Millard.

A Los Angeles judge has resentenced two brothers who are serving life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion, making them eligible for parole.

Judge Michael Jesic gave Erik and Lyle Menendez a new sentence of 50 years to life. A decision on their potential release will be made at a parole hearing in June.

The pair have acknowledged killing Kitty and Jose Menendez, but said they acted out of self-defence after years of abuse and have since been rehabilitated.

Prosecutors have argued the brothers meticulously planned the shotgun killings to access their parents' fortune, are yet to take responsibility and should not be released.

The notorious case, which has prompted books, documentaries and dramas, still divides America.

The brothers gave an emotional statement - via video - to the court at Tuesday's hearing.

The court heard relatives detail how the case affected their family, and pleading for the judge to allow the siblings' release from prison.

The brothers' cousin, Anamaria Baralt, who has been close with them since they were children, told the judge they deserved a "second chance at life".

"It's been a nightmare," she said. "I am desperate for this process to be over."

At times, both Erik and Lyle appeared emotional as family recounted how their crimes have impacted them. Both wiped their eyes at times, with Erik covering his mouth or putting his head in his hands at other moments.

Ms Baralt speaks with Erik and Lyle frequently, she told the court, and testified that they've taken "ownership of their actions".

She said they admitted they tried to steer their previous trial - with Lyle telling her he'd asked a witness to lie when testifying.

"They are very different men from the boys they were," she said.

Former US President Joe Biden's aides have hit back at a new book that accuses his White House inner circle of covering up his "physical deterioration" during his ill-fated re-election campaign.

According to the book, Original Sin, Biden's condition during his 2024 presidential run was said to be so poor that aides discussed putting him in a wheelchair.

A spokesperson for Biden, 82, said "evidence of aging is not evidence of mental incapacity" and maintained the Democrat had been "a very effective president".

The book, by CNN's Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, is due to be released on 20 May.

Biden abruptly ended his re-election campaign last July shortly after his disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump, a Republican.

Party insiders blamed him for exiting the race too late, leaving his replacement, Vice-President Kamala Harris, 107 days to challenge Trump, who swept to victory.

Ahead of the book's release, Biden last week gave his first interview since leaving the White House to the BBC, saying: "I don't think it would have mattered" if he had left the race sooner.

While the book largely cites anonymous sources in interviews with more than 200 people, one of the few to be quoted on the record is David Plouffe, who worked on Vice-President Harris's campaign.

"We got so screwed by Biden as a party," the book quotes Plouffe as saying.

The authors write: "Biden's physical deterioration - most apparent in his halting walk - had become so severe that there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair, but they couldn't do so until after the election.

"Given Biden's age, [his physician Kevin O'Connor] also privately said that if he had another bad fall, a wheelchair might be necessary for what could be a difficult recovery," the book adds.

Biden's physical condition had declined so much, the authors said, that aides had sought to ensure he walked shorter distances, used handrails when mounting stairs, and wore trainers more often.

At the time, Biden aides repeatedly told reporters his altered gait was due to a foot fracture in November 2020 and his subsequent refusal to consistently wear his prescribed surgical boot.

In a statement to Axios, an anonymous Biden aide said: "Yes, there were physical changes as he got older, but evidence of aging is not evidence of mental incapacity."

The spokesperson added: "We are still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or make a presidential address where he was unable to do his job because of mental decline.

"In fact, the evidence points to the opposite - he was a very effective president."

Tapper and Thompson's book also says that Biden did not recognise George Clooney at a star-studded California campaign fundraiser last June hosted by the Hollywood star.

"Thank you for being here," Biden told Clooney at the event, apparently unaware he was speaking to the Academy Award winner.

"You know George," an aide reportedly told Biden, as he was struggled to work out Clooney's identity.

Not long after the incident, Clooney wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times calling on Biden to quit the race. The actor was one of the first major donors to publicly withdraw his support.

The book also alleges that Biden forgot the names of veteran aides, including trusted loyalist Mike Donilon, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and White House communications director Kate Bedingfield.

Prosecutors' star witness, Sean "Diddy" Combs' ex-girlfriend Casandra Ventura, took the stand on Tuesday in the hip-hop mogul's sex trafficking trial, accusing the rapper of controlling her life and coercing her into "humiliating" sex acts.

Mr Combs has pleaded not guilty to charges including racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Family and friends have come to court in large numbers to support Mr Combs, whose legal team has not yet questioned Ms Ventura.

Ms Ventura, who is pregnant, told prosecutors about the alleged physical and emotional abuse she endured at the hands of the rapper during so-called "freak-offs", or sexual encounters the couple had with male escorts.

Here are some of the most notable parts of her first five hours of testimony.

Warning: This story contains details that some readers may find distressing.

Ms Ventura fell 'in love' with Mr Combs

Prosecutors began by questioning Ms Ventura - one of their two central witnesses in the case - about her 11-year, on-and-off relationship with Mr Combs.

Now 38 and pregnant in her third trimester with her third child, Ms Ventura met Mr Combs when she was a 19-year-old aspiring singer and he was 37. Mr Combs' record label would later sign Ms Ventura as an artist, and shortly after, their romantic relationship began.

Their relationship progressed over a series of several trips. At the time, she testified, she felt like they were in a monogamous relationship, though she knows now that he had other girlfriends.

She said she "fell in love" with the "larger than life entrepreneur and musician". But it was not long before she noticed another side to him, she said.

Mr Combs wanted to 'control' every part of her life, Ms Ventura says

Mr Combs wanted to "control" her life, Ms Ventura said. She said he paid for her home, her cars, her phone and other technology that he would sometimes take away to "punish" her.

"Control was everything, from the way that I looked ... to what I was working on," Ms Ventura said.

Eventually, she claimed, the control turned violent. Mr Combs would "bash on my head, knock me over, drag me and kick me" frequently, Ms Ventura testified, sometimes through tears.

She alleged that she was left with swollen lips, black eyes and knots on her forehead.

Ms Ventura felt 'humiliated' by 'freak-offs'

Prosecutors spent hours on Tuesday asking Ms Ventura about so-called "freak-offs".

Ms Ventura told the court how Mr Combs introduced her to the sexual events during the first year of their relationship: They would hire a male escort or stripper to have sex with Ms Ventura while Mr Combs watched.

Ms Ventura told the court that she first tried the encounters to make Mr Combs "happy". But she said they humiliated her, and sometimes lasted three to four days.

"I felt pretty horrible about myself," she told the court, wiping away tears. "It made me feel worthless."

Ms Ventura told the court she never wanted to have sex with anyone but Mr Combs, and claimed she would take myriad drugs - marijuana, ecstasy and ketamine - to help her perform to Mr Combs' satisfaction, but also to "disassociate".

The drugs were "a way to not feel it for what it really was", she said, "having sex with a stranger I didn't really want to be having sex with".

Mr Combs flew male escorts in for freak-offs, court hears

As prosecutors pressed Ms Ventura about the "freak-offs", she told the court of how Mr Combs would direct her to find male escorts, strippers or dancers to have sex with while he watched.

She alleged that Mr Combs would pay the men anywhere from $1,500 to $6,000 in cash, depending on their performance.

They found the men through stripper companies and sites like Craigslist. Some of their photos were displayed to the jurors, including Daniel Phillip, who finished his testimony earlier on Tuesday.

Ms Ventura and Mr Combs had the enounters in cities around the world, including Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas and Ibiza, Spain, Ms Ventura testified.

Sometimes, men would be flown in during vacations, she alleged, and Mr Combs would direct her to ask staff to pay for and arrange their travel, calling them new employees.

Among other charges, prosecutors are trying to prove that Mr Combs engaged in sex trafficking - human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation - and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Mr Combs 'directed', Ms Ventura says

As prosecutors pressed Ms Ventura for graphic details, one key element emerged: Ms Ventura claimed that Mr Combs controlled every part of the encounters.

He chose the outfits she wore - down to the extremely high heels she kept on for hours - as well as the sexual acts that transpired and the lighting, Ms Ventura told jurors.

"If Sean wanted something to happen, that was what was going to happen," she said. "I couldn't say no."

Sometimes, Ms Ventura said, she would take the lead on which male escorts to hire because Mr Combs was "very busy", but she only did so at his direction, she said.

She said freak-offs had a very specific "pattern" of sexual acts each time.

"He was controlling the whole situation," she alleged. "He was directing it."

At times, Ms Ventura said, she tried to tell Mr Combs that she felt "horrible". But when he dismissed her concerns, she said, she relented, worried he would get angry or question their relationship.

Ms Ventura is expected to continue her testimony on Wednesday, when she could also face cross-examination.

Thousands of civil servants are to be moved out of London under plans to save money and shift government jobs to offices across the country.

The government is aiming to cut the number of roles in London by 12,000 and close 11 offices in the capital to save £94m a year by 2032.

The changes will see two new government campuses opened in Manchester and Aberdeen, and roles created in other towns and cities.

Unions welcomed proposals to relocate officials but said they wanted more details on how civil servants would be impacted.

Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said the government wanted to move decision-making "closer to communities all across the UK".

He said: "By relocating thousands of civil service roles we will not only save taxpayers money, we will make this government one that better reflects the country it serves."

Shadow Conservative Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart said the plans showed Labour was "fundamentally unserious about reducing the size of the state and working more efficiently on behalf of taxpayers".

He accused Labour of "shuffling things around and making empty promises".

"Only the Conservatives are serious about reducing the size of the state and making it work more efficiently for British taxpayers," he said.

Government departments are being asked to submit their plans for relocating staff, including senior civil servants, as part of a spending review.

A government source told the BBC the exact number of civil servants relocated will be determined by the spending review, which is due to be completed in June.

The Labour government has set out a number of reforms to shrink the size of the civil service, which ministers believe is bloated and inefficient.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has promised to reduce government running costs by 15% by the end of the decade, and the Cabinet Office is looking to cut 2,100 jobs in its department over the next two years.

The number of civil service staff has increased considerably since 2016, with the headcount topping 514,000 at the end of last year, according to the Institute for Government.

Last year, a government source told the BBC more than 10,000 civil servants jobs could be cut as part of Labour's push for savings across all departments.

Regional campuses

On Wednesday, the government will outline plans to locate 50% of UK-based senior civil servants in regional offices by 2030.

The government wants to create three new regional campuses, one in Manchester focused on digital innovation and AI and a second in Aberdeen focused on energy. The third location is yet to be announced.

Manchester is already home to major offices of the science and culture departments, while Aberdeen houses the new Great British Energy headquarters.

Other roles will be created in Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff, Glasgow, Darlington, Newcastle and Tyneside, Sheffield, Bristol, Edinburgh, Belfast and York, with the changes expected to bring £729m to the local economy by 2030.

Among the offices being closed in London is 102 Petty France, one of the largest government offices in the capital and home to around 7,000 civil servants in the Ministry of Justice, HM Courts and Tribunal Service, Crown Prosecution Service and the Government Legal Department.

The Government will also close 39 Victoria Street, which has been home to the Department of Health and Social Care since the end of 2017.

Prospect union general secretary Mike Clancy said hundreds of thousands of civil servants already work outside of London and welcomed plans to "empower" them.

But he added: "We have been here before with similar announcements, if this one is to be different, government needs to work closely with unions both on specific relocation plans and on the wider civil service reform agenda."

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, said civil servants "need to be able to build careers for the longer-term across the UK, including in London where there will now be fewer opportunities".

Penman said Wednesday's announcement meant "uncertainty" for "civil servants working in offices whose closures have been announced today" and the FDA looked forward to seeing more detail.

A duck has been caught speeding on traffic cameras in the town of Koeniz in central Switzerland.

Local police said the mallard - a wild duck - was snapped on radar images on 13 April clocking in at 52km (32 miles) in a 30km zone.

Adding to the mystery, authorities said the duck was likely a repeat offender and shared an image of a similar looking duck travelling in the same spot, at the same speed and on the same date in 2018.

There has been speculation about whether the "notorious racer" duck incident was a belated April Fool's joke, but the police inspectorate said it is impossible to manipulate images on the radar system.

Authorities said traffic cameras are tested each year by Switzerland's Federal Institute of Metrology and the photos taken are sealed.

In a Facebook post, Koeniz officials wished the public "a lot of fun" in making sense of the "curious coincidences" seven years in the making.

"We wish you a lot of fun sensing about curious coincidences, criminal machinations of animals and the maximum flight speed of ducks," the post read.

Some comments have asked what the penalty will be for the "racer duck's" transgressions.

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

In the latest India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no red buttons.

Yet the cycle of military retaliation, veiled signals and swift international mediation quietly evoked the region's most dangerous shadow. The crisis didn't spiral towards nuclear war, but it was a reminder of how quickly tensions here can summon that spectre.

Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terrorist attack on India's parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.

Six years later, a real-world stand-off - though contained by a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday - stoked fears of a full-blown conflict. It also revived uneasy memories of how fragile stability in the region can be.

As the crisis escalated, Pakistan sent "dual signals" - retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, a calculated reminder of its nuclear capability. The NCA oversees control and potential use of the country's nuclear arsenal. Whether this move was symbolic, strategic or a genuine alert, we may never know. It also came just as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stepped in to defuse the spiral.

President Trump said the US didn't just broker a ceasefire - it averted a "nuclear conflict". On Monday, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: "[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats.

"Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes," Modi added.

India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). As of January 2024, Sipri estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed - 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.

The bulk of both India's and Pakistan's deployed arsenals lies in their land-based missile forces, though both are developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea, according to Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US.

"India likely has a larger air leg (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons) than Pakistan. While we know the least of Pakistan's naval leg, it is reasonable to assess that India's naval leg is more advanced and more capable than Pakistan's sea-based nuclear force," he told the BBC.

One reason, Mr Clary said, is that Pakistan has invested nowhere near the "time or money" that India has in building a nuclear-powered submarine, giving India a "clear qualitative" edge in naval nuclear capability.

Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine.

India, by contrast, adopted a no-first-use policy following its own 1998 tests. But this stance has shown signs of softening. In 2003, India reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks - effectively allowing for first use under certain conditions.

Further ambiguity emerged in 2016, when then–defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India shouldn't feel "bound" by the policy, raising questions about its long-term credibility. (Parrikar clarified that this was his own opinion.)

The absence of a formal doctrine doesn't mean Pakistan lacks one - official statements, interviews and nuclear developments offer clear clues to its operational posture, according to Sadia Tasleem of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Pakistan's nuclear threshold remains vague, but in 2001, Khalid Kidwai - then head of the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA - outlined four red lines: major territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation or political destabilisation.

In 2002, then-president Pervez Musharraf clarified that "nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India", and would only be used if "the very existence of Pakistan as a state" was at stake.

In his memoir, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote that he was jolted awake at night to speak with an unnamed "Indian counterpart" who feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.

Around the same time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official issuing a stark warning to India: "I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region."

During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan's then-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed warned that the country would not "hesitate to use any weapon" to defend its territory. Years later, US official Bruce Riedel revealed that intelligence indicated Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible deployment.

But there is scepticism on both sides over such claims.

Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria wrote in his memoir that Pompeo overstated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the US role in calming the conflict in 2019. And during Kargil, Pakistan "knew the Indian Air Force wouldn't cross into its territory" - so there was no real trigger for even an implicit nuclear threat, insist Pakistani analysts.

"Strategic signalling reminds the world that any conflict can spiral - and with India and Pakistan, the stakes are higher due to the nuclear overhang. But that doesn't mean either side is actively threatening nuclear use," Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, told the BBC.

But nuclear escalation can happen by accident too. "This could happen by human error, hackers, terrorists, computer failures, bad data from satellites and unstable leaders," Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, lead author of the landmark 2019 paper by a global team of scientists, told the BBC.

In March 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile which travelled 124km (77 miles) into Pakistani territory before crashing, reportedly damaging civilian property. Pakistan said India failed to use the military hotline or issue a public statement for two days. Had this occurred during heightened tensions, the incident could have spiralled into serious conflict, experts say. (Months later, India's government sacked three air force officers for the "accidental firing of a missile".)

Yet, the danger of nuclear war remains "relatively small" between India and Pakistan, according to Mr Clary.

"So long as there is not major ground combat along the border, the dangers of nuclear use remain relatively small and manageable," he said.

"In ground combat, the 'use it or lose it' problem is propelled by the possibility that your ground positions will be overrun by the enemy." ('Use it or lose it' refers to the pressure a nuclear-armed country may feel to launch its weapons before they are destroyed in a first strike by an adversary.)

Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, believes that "neither India nor Pakistan wants to be labelled as the first violator of the post-Hiroshima nuclear taboo".

"Furthermore, any side that resorts to the use of nuclear weapons would face substantial retaliation and suffer unacceptable casualties," Mr Ganguly told the BBC.

At the same time, both India and Pakistan appear to be beefing up their nuclear arsenal.

With new delivery systems in development, four plutonium reactors and expanding uranium enrichment, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could reach around 200 warheads by the late 2020s, according to The Nuclear Notebook, researched by the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project.

And as of early 2023, India was estimated to have about 680kg of weapons-grade plutonium - enough for roughly 130-210 nuclear warheads, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.

Despite repeated crises and close calls, both sides have so far managed to avoid a catastrophic slide into nuclear conflict. "The deterrent is still holding. All Pakistanis did was to respond to conventional strikes with counter-conventional strikes of their own," writes Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst.

Yet, the presence of nuclear weapons injects a constant undercurrent of risk - one that can never be entirely ruled out, no matter how experienced the leadership or how restrained the intentions.

"When nuclear weapons can be involved, there is always an unacceptable level of danger,"John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the BBC.

"The Indian and Pakistani governments have navigated these situations in the past, so the risk is small. But with nuclear weapons, even a small risk is too large."

Family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue of assisted dying, BBC research on plans to legalise the practice suggests.

The findings give a unique insight into how strongly many GPs feel about the proposed new law - and highlight how personal beliefs and experiences are shaping doctors' views on the issue.

BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.

More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour.

Some of the 500 GPs who told us they were against the law change called the bill "appalling", "highly dangerous", and "cruel". "We are doctors, not murderers," one said.

Of the 400 who said they supported assisted dying, some described the bill as "long overdue" and "a basic human right".

"We are keeping human bodies alive in the most inhumane manner," one said. They asked: "How do we ethically justify forcing these bodies to continue to exist in decrepitude?"

We cannot know whether the GPs who responded to the BBC are representative of all family doctors.

It comes as MPs will this week again debate proposed changes to the controversial bill, with a vote in parliament expected on whether to pass or block it next month.

If assisted dying does become legal in England and Wales, it would be a historic change for society.

Current laws prevent medics from helping any patient to carry out their wish to die. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying, but GPs are often a large part of the practice in other countries.

The BBC's research, carried out over a few weeks in March and April, is the first in-depth look at how GPs feel about the proposed new law.

Nine out of 10 GPs who said they were against legalising assisted dying worried terminally ill patients would consider it because they felt guilty about being a burden on their loved ones or the health service.

"The right to die becomes a duty to die for those who feel a burden on family," said one GP.

Another common concern was patients might be coerced. Some told us they had treated elderly people with family members they suspected of being more focussed on their inheritance than their relatives.

More than half of the group who opposed a law change said it would be against their religious beliefs.

They spoke about life being "sacred" and called assisted dying "sinful". Some referred to the commandment "thou shalt not kill".

Another argument from those who said they were against assisted dying was the health system should instead focus on improving end-of-life care.

One GP said creating an assisted dying law was "scandalous" when hospices were largely funded by charities rather than by the state.

Separately, on Tuesday the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that while the group "remains neutral" on the principle of assisted dying, it "just cannot support this bill".

In an interview with BBC's Newsnight, the college's president Dr Lade Smith cited a lack of requirements concerning the "unmet needs" of patients, and a shortage of psychiatrists to process requests.

"We're concerned that there isn't a requirement to think about any unmet needs a person might have. A person with a terminal illness... they may be in pain, they have difficulty with their housing, their finances because they haven't been able to work, they might feel lonely, isolated," Dr Smith said.

Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing said there was a "black hole" in the hospice budget and "we need better care not killing".

Dying with dignity

More than 400 GPs told us they supported a law change, with some describing feeling "traumatised" and "haunted" by watching people die in "severe pain or distress".

Of those who said they were in favour, more than nine in 10 respondents believed it could allow patients to have a dignified death.

Some shared personal experiences: telling us about watching their parents losing dignity or begging to die. One said their sick wife prayed every evening to not wake up in the morning.

Those who backed assisted dying often spoke about patient choice, arguing it was patronising not to let people decide how they wanted to die.

Wanting the option of an assisted death for themselves or their loved ones was another common reason for supporting the law.

"Personally, I would find this a comfort and I resent those who take this choice away from me," one told us.

'Unpredictable' timeframe

If assisted dying does become law in England and Wales, it would apply to certain terminally ill patients who were reasonably expected to die within six months.

But more than a quarter of all the GPs who responded told us they would rarely, or never be confident assessing if a patient was expected to die in that time frame.

"It's unpredictable even in the severely frail," one said.

No doctor would be obliged to work in assisted dying. Of the 1,000 GP respondents, more than 500 told us they would be willing to discuss assisted dying with a patient.

Nearly 300 would assess if a patient was eligible and 161 said they would prepare a substance for a patient to take to end their own life.

Legal risks

Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the BBC's research showed GPs had "real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying".

"These must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight," she said.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said GPs and other medics will "rightly be considering how they will navigate" the proposed law.

She said evidence from assisted dying laws in Australia and the US showed it could be carried out "safely and effectively, with far reaching benefits for end-of-life care and robust protections for both patients and doctors".

Additional reporting by Vicki Loader, Elena Bailey, Natalie Wright and Hannah Karpel

US President Donald Trump has said the US has "no stronger partner" than Saudi Arabia during his first major foreign trip - a whirlwind visit of Gulf countries mainly focused on shoring up investment.

Day one of the trip saw the two sides announce a $142bn (£107bn) arms deal, as well as a raft of other investments that Saudi Arabia's crown prince said could eventually be worth $1tn.

Trump also made Saudi Arabia the first foreign stop during his first term, in 2017. The rest of his gulf tour will include stops in Qatar and the UAE.

Speaking for nearly an hour in Riyadh, Trump also announced that the US would be lifting sanctions on Syria in order to give the country "a chance at greatness".

In his remarks at a US-Saudi investment forum, Trump lauded the US-Saudi relationship as "more powerful than ever before" and praised his domestic agenda - particularly as it pertains to the economy and foreign investment.

"From the moment we started we've seen wealth that has poured - and is pouring - into America," he said.

The visit comes as Trump continues to try woo foreign investors to the US to boost the US economy, a key focus of his administration in the nearly four months of his second term.

"I like him too much," Trump said of Saudi Arabia's crown prince and de-facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. "That's why we give so much."

Underscoring his commitment to deal-making, Trump was joined by billionaire ally Elon Musk and other business leaders at a lavish lunch.

During his address, Trump announced he was lifting sanctions on Syria to "give them a chance at greatness" and said it was his "dream" to have Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords, a deal brokered in his first administration that saw relations between Israel and some Gulf countries normalised for the first time.

As for other regional issues - Trump only briefly addressed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. He told those in attendance that people in Gaza deserved a "better future" which had been held back by Hamas choosing "to kidnap, torture and target" for "political ends" - a reference to the 7 October attack on Israel.

The friendly tone of the visit stands in stark contrast to the often-tense relationship between the Saudis and Biden, who in 2023 called on the US to "reassess" its relationship with the kingdom.

As a candidate successfully campaigning against Trump in 2020, Biden had also vowed to make Saudi Arabia a "pariah" in response to the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a US-based journalist killed in Istanbul in 2018.

In 2021, he also stopped sending US offensive weapons to the Saudis, although they resumed last year.

At the time, Biden also said that there was "very little redeeming value" in the Saudi government - although the following year he visited the kingdom on a state visit.

From Saudi Arabia, Trump will head to both Qatar and the UAE, which has already committed to investing $1.4tn in the US over the next decade.

Former Uruguayan President José Mujica, known as "Pepe", has died at the age of 89.

The ex-guerrilla who governed Uruguay from 2010 to 2015 was known as the world's "poorest president" because of his modest lifestyle.

Current President Yamandú Orsi announced his predecessor's death on X, writing: "thank you for everything you gave us and for your deep love for your people."

The politician's cause of death is not known but he had been suffering from oesophageal cancer.

Because of the simple way he lived as president, his criticism of consumerism and the social reforms he promoted - which, among other things, meant Uruguay became the first country to legalise the recreational use of marijuana - Mujica became a well-known political figure in Latin America and beyond.

His global popularity is unusual for a president of Uruguay, a country with just 3.4 million inhabitants where his legacy has also generated some controversy.

In fact, even though many tended to see Mujica as someone outside the political class, that was not the case.

He said his passion for politics, as well as for books and working the land, was passed on to him by his mother, who raised him in a middle-class home in Montevideo, the capital city.

As a young man, Mujica was a member of the National Party, one of Uruguay's traditional political forces, which later became the centre-right opposition to his government.

In the 1960s, he helped set up the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement (MLN-T), a leftist urban guerrilla group that carried out assaults, kidnappings and executions, although he always maintained that he did not commit any murder.

Influenced by the Cuban revolution and international socialism, the MLN-T launched a campaign of clandestine resistance against the Uruguayan government, which at the time was constitutional and democratic, although the left accused it of being increasingly authoritarian.

During this period, Mujica was captured four times. On one of those occasions, in 1970, he was shot six times and nearly died.

He escaped from prison twice, on one occasion through a tunnel with 105 other MLN-T prisoners, in one of the largest escapes in Uruguayan prison history.

When the Uruguayan military staged a coup in 1973, they included him in a group of "nine hostages" who they threatened to kill if the guerrillas continued their attacks.

During the more than 14 years he spent in prison during the 1970s and 1980s, he was tortured and spent most of that time in harsh conditions and isolation, until he was freed in 1985 when Uruguay returned to democracy.

He used to say that during his time in prison, he experienced madness first hand, suffering from delusions and even talking to ants.

The day he was freed was his happiest memory, he says: "Becoming president was insignificant compared to that."

From guerrilla to president

A few years after his release, he served as a lawmaker, both in the Chamber of Representatives and in the Senate, the country's lower and upper houses respectively.

In 2005, he became minister in the first government of the Frente Amplio, the Uruguayan leftist coalition, before becoming Uruguay's president in 2010.

He was 74 years old at the time, and, to the rest of the world, still unknown.

His election marked an important moment for the Latin American left, which was already strong on the continent at that time. Mujica became leader alongside other left-wing presidents such as Luis Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

However, Mujica governed in his own way, demonstrating pragmatism and audacity on several occasions, political commentators say.

During his administration, amid a fairly favourable international context, the Uruguayan economy grew at an average annual rate of 5.4%, poverty was reduced, and unemployment remained low.

Uruguay also drew global attention for the social laws passed by parliament during those years, such as the legalisation of abortion, the recognition of same-sex marriage, and state regulation of the marijuana market.

While in office, Mujica rejected moving into the presidential residence (a mansion), as heads of state around the world usually do.

Instead, he remained with his wife - politician and former guerrilla Lucía Topolansky - in their modest home on the outskirts of Montevideo, with no domestic help and little security.

This combined with the fact that he always dressed casually, that he was often seen driving his light blue 1987 Volkswagen Beetle and gave away a large portion of his salary, led some media outlets to call him "the world's poorest president".

But Mujica always rejected that title: "They say I'm the poorest president. No, I'm not," he told me in a 2012 interview at his home. "Poor are those who want more [...] because they're in an endless race."

Despite Mujica preaching austerity, his government did significantly increase public spending, widening the fiscal deficit and leading his opponents to accuse him of waste.

Mujica was also criticised for failing to reverse the growing problems in Uruguayan education, despite having promised that education would be a top priority for his administration.

However, unlike other leaders in the region, he was never accused of corruption or of undermining his country's democracy.

By the end of his administration, Mujica had a high domestic popularity rating (close to 70%) and was elected senator, but also spent part of his time travelling the world after he stepped down as president.

"So what it is that catches the world's attention? That I live with very little, a simple house, that I drive around in an old car? Then this world is crazy because it's surprised by [what is] normal," he reflected before leaving office.

Mujica retired from politics in 2020 though he remained a central figure in Uruguay.

His political heir, Yamandú Orsi, was elected president of Uruguay in November 2024 and his group within the Frente Amplio obtained the largest number of parliamentary seats since the country's return to democracy.

Last year, Mujica announced he had cancer and references to his age and the inexorable proximity of death became more frequent - but he always accepted the final outcome as something natural, without drama.

In the last interview he gave the BBC in November last year, he said: "One knows that death is inevitable. And perhaps it's like the salt of life."

Just before Christmas, in a private dining room in the upmarket Charlotte Street Hotel in the heart of London's Soho, the BBC's director general gathered some of the UK's leading TV creatives and executives for lunch. As they ate, surrounded by kaleidoscopic-patterned wallpaper and giant artworks, they were also chewing over the future survival of their own industry.

As solutions were thrown around to what many see as an acute funding crisis in the age of global streaming, one of the invitees suggested, in passing, that BBC Studios (the corporation's commercial content-producing arm) could merge with Channel 4 to create a bigger, more powerful force to compete with the likes of Disney Plus, Netflix and Amazon.

As another diner knocked down the idea, I'm told that Tim Davie, the BBC's DG, asked why it was so ridiculous.

I relate that not because it has come to fruition. It hasn't. Nor even to suggest that the Director General supports the idea.

Instead the story illustrates the belief, among some within the broadcasting industry, that nothing should be off the table when it comes to contemplating how to ensure the survival of British-originated and British-focused TV as we know it.

Many of the people I spoke to for this piece didn't want to be quoted. But Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former Chairman of ITV, told me that what he termed the current "generous spread" of British broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) will need some consolidation or, at the very least, more cooperation in future.

"We're in danger of having no public service broadcasting within a decade, certainly within 20 years," he says. "We don't have a strategy for their survival. It's that serious. The regulators need to start thinking about it.

"Mergers may well be part of the answer. There should be fewer companies in the future."

Lord Vaizey, who was Culture Minister under David Cameron, put it baldly. "ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 should merge.

"The UK only has room for two domestic broadcasters."

Others, however, argue that distinctiveness is good for viewers. Channel 5 President Sarah Rose told me she "couldn't disagree with Ed Vaizey more" – calling it a "Doomsday prophecy".

Channel 5 is profitable, she tells me; it invests in smaller production companies and offers plurality for British audiences. By having just one commercial channel, "You're taking the funnel from three to one types of content for British audiences."

Channel 4 also rejects the suggestion of any merger. Its outgoing CEO Alex Mahon argues that, "The unique structure of competition between our publicly funded and commercially funded broadcasters" is what makes UK public service TV "so excellent".

And yet the days of turning on your TV and finding an electronic programme guide listing channels – with BBC1 and BBC2 at the top, then ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – are disappearing. The proposed date for the dawn of a new era is 2035; the end of traditional terrestrial TV as we know it.

When the increasingly expensive contracts to provide broadcast channels and digital terrestrial services like Freeview come to an end, the UK's broadcasters are likely to pivot to offering digital-only video on demand. (However this won't happen without a campaign to ensure older people are protected, as well as rural and low-income households who may not have high quality internet access.)

But if the aerials are turned off in 2035, is this the moment TV as we know it changes forever? If it becomes a battle between online-only British streamers and their better-funded US rivals, can the Brits survive? And, crucially, what will audiences be watching?

How TV could look by 2035

Flash forward to switching on the television in 2035 and there will of course have been certain technological transformations – perhaps more immersive viewing experiences or some shows viewed through augmented reality glasses. What's highly likely, though, is that the communal big screen will still be a staple, (albeit probably voice-activated by then).

It's a shift that has already begun with YouTube viewers changing their viewing habits and moving to the bigger screen. In 2024, for the first time, TV sets were the most-used device for watching content on the video sharing site at home, according to recent data from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board (Barb). In all, 41% of YouTube viewing was done on TV sets, ahead of 31% on smartphones.

With YouTube an apparently unstoppable force, in ten years' time it could well become the go-to viewing for the majority.

"We are likely to continue to see a shift in the share of viewing time and advertising revenue towards globally-scaled players and user-generated content platforms like YouTube and TikTok," all within the next five years, according to Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M.

There'll also likely be Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon. In other words, the global players, based in the US, many of which also have other revenue streams (whether parks, computer hardware or a vast shopping platform).

Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M tells me the UK broadcasters are facing what could be an "existential" battle against US-based media companies with "wildly different business models".

The shift to streaming TV has, she says, "enabled large globally-scaled players to get even bigger and pour money into content that they can put in front of worldwide audiences".

The "big players with big pockets" already pay for a bespoke button on certain remote controls, or their own content tile front and centre on the homepage on smart TVs.

Ms Scott-Dawkins believes that in the future it will be "a position of strength" to own the operating systems themselves, as well as the media that people are watching on them. For example, this might mean Apple showing its films and television series on Apple TVs and iPhones, or Amazon showing its own productions via its Fire devices, or Google through its own computers and phones.

Questions of revenue

Part of the problem is that the UK terrestrial channels can't compete financially with the streamers. Netflix, for example, is valued at $472bn (£356bn).

The BBC has lost 30% of its income – or £1bn a year – in real terms since 2010, as the licence fee has become worth less. ITV's share price hasn't yet recovered since the advertising downturn in 2022, despite its vast production arm, ITV Studios, boosting its earnings before tax to £299m.

Meanwhile, Channel 4's recorded a deficit of £52m for 2023. Alex Mahon told Parliament last month, "We will pretty much break even in the year".

Some TV insiders think the solution will be one gateway or app for all public service content: one place to find all shows from BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5.

Alex Mahon recently told a newspaper that there needs to be "more collaboration" between the UK broadcasters – a way of "making sure we're not duplicating the same technology".

ITV has spent hundreds of millions to create ITVX, its streaming platform for the Netflix-age. Channel 4 took a pioneering approach to its own digital transformation, launching 4oD back in 2006; the first broadcaster in the world to offer television content on-demand.

But while its current £1bn a year revenue enables it to compete as a significant content creator, this may not be enough to sustain a modern distribution platform with all the associated investment costs into the long term, according to some insiders.

Lord Hall, the former BBC Director General, is among those arguing that it's not sustainable for individual broadcasters to continue going it alone. "The notion that everyone has their own portals when you are competing against the huge streamers is not going to survive into the future," he says.

'One big streamer under iPlayer'?

Could the solution be for BBC iPlayer, which has been built with public money, to become the portal for the other British public service media content, too? It would be a single place where viewers could find ITV's The Chase, Channel 4's The Great British Bake Off and Channel 5 News, alongside BBC's The Traitors. This was one idea suggested to me by multiple TV insiders. "One big streamer under iPlayer", as one TV executive described it to me, "a modern public service streaming service".

Part of their argument is that it's the fastest growing streaming service in the UK – and the only existing platform of plausible scale to compete.

With political support and the right deal, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could potentially get behind sharing tech (after all, the streaming service Freely, which launched last year, already hosts their content with the BBC's and others).

But the idea of branding this all under the BBC iPlayer is – unsurprisingly – not something that commercial broadcasters would likely entertain, according to conversations I've had.

Lord Hall believes, "It could be branded differently... It would be a very good step."

He says: "The public would have to get used to the fact that BBC material would be free of advertising, and other parts of the platform would have adverts."

If the idea of a shared streaming service sounds familiar, that's because it was proposed years ago. Project Kangaroo was a plan by BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 for a UK video-on-demand joint venture. Think an early rival to Netflix.

But the UK's Competition Commission blocked the project in 2009 because of concerns it could harm competition in the emerging VoD market.

Other regulators across Europe have also blocked mergers: In France, the TFI and M6 channels were prevented from merging. Two of the largest TV and radio broadcasters in the Netherlands, which would have combined eight national TV channels and four national radio stations, were also stopped for competition reasons.

Any form of merger between different public service broadcasters would be subject to the same scrutiny. It's perhaps why Sir Peter Bazalgette is calling on UK politicians and regulators to focus on creating a strategy – or risk the end of British TV as we know it.

Nostalgia versus a changing world

Today, people in the UK spend more time watching traditional broadcasters than they do streaming services. Figures show 87% of people age four and above watch the traditional broadcasters each month and they spend an average of 137 minutes a day doing so. By comparison, 78% of people watch a streaming service and they spend only 40 minutes a day doing so.

If this does shift and the pattern reverses, TV producers and executives may be worried. But does it really matter to audiences?

Netflix is already making the types of shows that may have previously been made by the likes of the BBC (Adolescence, Toxic Town and Baby Reindeer are all very British stories made by the streamer). So what is the problem? (Aside from the obvious point that you need a subscription to watch Netflix.)

Ms Rose argues that the picture is "much more complex". Creatives involved in those shows often cut their teeth in public service TV, she says – one of benefits of the traditional broadcasters is, she believes, that it is a pipeline of talent.

Sir Peter Bazalgette argues that they're needed more than ever in our AI age to serve as "a gold standard of trusted news for our democracy, amid the online Tower of Babel."

He also argues for programmes that reflect "our shared values and national conversation". Would a US-based streamer have chosen to make Mr Bates v the Post Office (ITV), for example, or 'It's A Sin' (Channel 4) – stories that are uniquely British and reflect who we are?

Backing producers to take risks is, says Lord Hall, "exactly what the BBC should be doing – but of course [it] has been doing less because the licence fee has been consistently cut".

Start of the 'martini streaming age'

Ultimately, the American streamers are here to stay; they're spending billions and their UK operations are often led by British executives who are supportive of Britain's public service broadcasting scene.

I have also picked up a sense from those inside Netflix that the company is often used as a battering ram to persuade the government that the UK's traditional broadcasters need more protections.

Some have also been critical of the BBC for, as they see it, wanting everything on its own terms: "'We want you to give us your money for co-productions, but the BBC will make all the creative decisions'," is how one insider put it to me, unfairly or not.

In 2018, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos was invited to the BBC's New Broadcasting House in London. Invitees recall that he talked warmly about how influential the BBC's iPlayer had been to the success of Netflix, describing how impressed he had been by a piece of kit that had got British viewers used to getting their video on demand.

With more than 17 million Brits now subscribed to Netflix, there is a certain irony to that.

Today, as the BBC's Director General Tim Davie starts to position the BBC ahead of the renewal of the corporation's charter after 2027, the TV landscape is changing fast. And the challenges are clear.

Lord Hall tells me: "Our lives will be enriched by having not only what the streamers can offer, but also what the public service broadcasters can bring. It's unthinkable not to build on what the BBC and others can deliver".

Sir Peter Bazalgette predicts that, "Small doesn't cut it," adding that, "The winners will have to be big enough to [both] afford high end dramas for winning subscribers and maintain large back catalogues to keep subscribers happy."

He says we now live in "the 'martini' streaming age - any time, any place, anywhere".

The question is whether the leaders of the public service broadcasters can forge the right plan to safeguard their industry in that age.

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.

A Los Angeles judge has resentenced two brothers who are serving life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion, making them eligible for parole.

Judge Michael Jesic gave Erik and Lyle Menendez a new sentence of 50 years to life. A decision on their potential release will be made at a parole hearing in June.

The pair have acknowledged killing Kitty and Jose Menendez, but said they acted out of self-defence after years of abuse and have since been rehabilitated.

Prosecutors have argued the brothers meticulously planned the shotgun killings to access their parents' fortune, are yet to take responsibility and should not be released.

The notorious case, which has prompted books, documentaries and dramas, still divides America.

The brothers gave an emotional statement - via video - to the court at Tuesday's hearing.

The court heard relatives detail how the case affected their family, and pleading for the judge to allow the siblings' release from prison.

The brothers' cousin, Anamaria Baralt, who has been close with them since they were children, told the judge they deserved a "second chance at life".

"It's been a nightmare," she said. "I am desperate for this process to be over."

At times, both Erik and Lyle appeared emotional as family recounted how their crimes have impacted them. Both wiped their eyes at times, with Erik covering his mouth or putting his head in his hands at other moments.

Ms Baralt speaks with Erik and Lyle frequently, she told the court, and testified that they've taken "ownership of their actions".

She said they admitted they tried to steer their previous trial - with Lyle telling her he'd asked a witness to lie when testifying.

"They are very different men from the boys they were," she said.