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.

If you ask these three doctors about being GPs, their answers are remarkably similar.

"It can be the best job in the world," one tells me. It's "a privilege" another says. They all talk about how they love getting to know their patients and their families.

But all three have different views on assisted dying.

Right now, the law here is clear: medics cannot help patients to take their own lives. But that could change.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being debated in Parliament. And if it goes through, it will give some terminally ill patients in England and Wales the option of an assisted death.

Here, three doctors - Abdul Farooq, Susi Caesar and Gurpreet Khaira, who all have a different view on assisted dying - tell us how they feel about the proposals.

'A red line I would never cross'

Dr Abdul Farooq is 28 and relatively new to his career as a GP.

We meet at his home in east London. He gives his baby daughter a bottle of milk before heading around the corner to pray in his local mosque.

His religion is absolutely key to his views on assisted dying.

"I believe in the sanctity of life. As a Muslim, I believe that life is a gift from God, and that no one has the right to take that away," he says.

Dr Farooq feels taking your own life is wrong, and so, he says, it would be "sinful" for him to be involved in that process - even indirectly.

If this law passed - and a patient came to him asking for help to die - he would refer them to another doctor.

He says anything beyond that would be "a red line I would never cross".

Dr Farooq's objections are also informed by his professional experience, particularly his time working in a hospital.

He describes seeing "undignified deaths" - people passing away on busy wards - and says the health system is not getting the basics right in end-of-life care.

"There is so much we can do to make patients comfortable, if we have the right resources available," he tells me.

"We have a whole field of medicine called palliative medicine that is there to help people towards the end of their life. So why are we not throwing all our resources and money into that and actually making the process of death less scary?"

He's also concerned about specific parts of the proposed law. Doctors would have to assess if terminally ill patients are expected to die within six months before they are approved for an assisted death.

Dr Farooq sees this as problematic. The final day or so is easy to predict, he says, but adds that some patients he's expected to die within six months can still be alive a year later.

Is there anything that could change his mind on assisted dying?

"No," Dr Farooq says without hesitation. "I'm strongly against it. Personally and professionally, I think it's the wrong thing to do for patients."

'I'll be at the front of the queue to help'

Dr Susi Caesar has been a GP for 30 years and thinks she probably wouldn't have previously been so vocal in her support of assisted dying.

Now, she says she is ready to "stick her head above the parapet".

Recently she lost her beloved dad, Henning. We meet at a lake near Cirencester because being near water reminds her of him.

"My father was the most amazing person and this is so evocative of everything he loved," she says. "The outdoors, walks, sailing, boats, kayaking, swimming."

She thinks Henning would be proud of her for talking to us about her views because he was a long-term believer in assisted dying.

When he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, Dr Caesar says he became "terribly scared about the manner of his dying".

"My father was a very proud man, and the thing that was unbearable to him was the idea that he would lose control at the end of his life - of his bodily functions, of his mind, of his ability to be the person that he was."

By the end, Dr Caesar says her father's "medication never quite kept up with his symptoms." For her, the argument over assisted dying comes down to patient choice.

"Everybody is going to die. Every individual deserves the comfort of choice about how they die. I would want it for myself," she tells me.

She acknowledges that many of her colleagues have "very, very reasonable concerns" about assisted dying. But she says "we have the wisdom to set up systems that will work and get over some of these hurdles."

I ask if Dr Caesar's support for assisted dying would translate into her working in this area.

"I will be at the front of the queue to help people to have the death that they wanted," she says. "I think that's the core joy of my job - being with people to the very end of their health journey."

'A very guilty place'

Dr Gurpreet Khaira doesn't have any of the certainty of Dr Farooq and Dr Caesar.

She describes herself as "pretty conflicted about the whole subject" of assisted dying.

Dr Khaira is a GP in Birmingham but also has first-hand experience as a patient.

In 2017, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She found chemotherapy gruelling and says if the cancer ever came back, she wouldn't want to go through it again.

"I remember feeling very passionate that I should have the choice of whether I go through this kind of treatment, or to say 'that's enough now'," she says.

She says it felt very important for her to have a choice about the end of her life.

Now, she's a picture of health, striding along a hillside with ease.

As a GP with decades of experience, she worries that vulnerable patients might opt for assisted dying rather than be a burden to their loved ones. Or that some families might coerce vulnerable patients into it.

"That is one of my biggest areas of personal conflict. I know that there are lots of plans to put safeguards in.

"You can be the best doctor or advocate in the world, but you may not pick up where someone is being controlled or manipulated."

For her, there's a fundamental conflict between her personal and professional experiences.

But, she adds: "As a doctor, I'd be very reluctant to be handing over a syringe for a patient to make that choice."

Balancing up these two sides leaves her "in a very guilty place", she says, but adds that it's not a weakness to be open minded. For her, making this decision is an "evolving process".

Personal experience shaping opinions

It's striking when talking to Dr Farooq, Dr Caesar and Dr Khaira, how much their views on assisted dying reflect their core belief systems.

In that respect, GPs are possibly much like the rest of us.

If this bill does pass into law, doctors will have to consider whether they are willing to work in the area of assisted dying, or not. They could be asked to be involved in the process - whether that's holding preliminary discussions with patients who want to die, to prescribing a substance for someone to end their own life.

If they don't want to, no-one will force them.

They will have time to think about it. If MPs do vote in favour of this next month, it could still take years to come into effect.

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.

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.

The government is abolishing NHS England without a clear plan for how it will be achieved and how it will benefit frontline care, a cross-party group of MPs has warned.

Ministers announced in March that the body responsible for overseeing the health service in England would go, with its functions brought into the Department of Health and Social Care.

But the Public Accounts Committee said it was concerned about the uncertainty being caused and urged the government to set out a clear plan within the next three months.

The government said the move would eliminate "wasteful duplication" and that detailed planning had started.

Alongside the changes at a national level, the 42 local health boards responsible for planning services are also having to shed around half of their 25,000 staff.

The MPs also raised concerns about the "jaw-dropping" amount of money lawyers are making from clinical negligence claims. Of the £2.8bn paid out in 2023-24, nearly a fifth went on legal costs.

It said this was unacceptable and more must be done to improve safety.

Huge pressure

Committee chair and Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said the changes to NHS England and local health boards amounted to a major structural reform.

He said strong decision-making and experienced staff would be vital to manage a period of "huge pressure" for the NHS.

"It has been two months since the government's decision to remove what, up until now, has been seen as a key piece of machinery, without articulating a clear plan for what comes next – and the future for patients and staff remains hazy," he added.

NHS England, which employs nearly 15,000 staff, is in charge of £193bn of public sector money this year.

The reduction in staffing of abolishing NHS England is expected to save £400m, while the cut in local health board staff is expected to add another £700-750m.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Social Care said the changes would eliminate "wasteful duplication" and a joint board was already working on detailed plans.

"Serious reform is needed to tackle the challenges facing the NHS," she added.

Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents NHS trusts, said the changes "marked the biggest reshaping of the NHS in a decade".

He said that while many managers in the NHS understood the need for change, the lack of detail and how the plans fitted in with the forthcoming 10-year plan were "a cause for concern" for those running the health service.

Céline Dion made a rare appearance during the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest with a brief, pre-recorded message.

The star won the contest for Switzerland in 1988, and it had been rumoured she would take the stage as the ceremony returns to the country this year.

"I'd love nothing more than to be with you," she said in a video, apparently ruling out that possibility. "Switzerland will forever hold a special place in my heart. It's the country that believed in me and gave me the chance to be part of something so extraordinary."

The semi-final saw 10 acts qualify for Saturday's grand finale, including Swedish entrants KAJ, whose song Bara Bada Bastu is the runaway favourite.

Their song, an accordion-led comedy number whose title translates to "let's take a sauna", has a 40% chance of winning, according to bookmakers.

If the prediction comes true, it would be Sweden's eighth Eurovision title - making them the most victorious country in the contest's history (they are currently tied with Ireland, on seven wins each).

Fifteen acts performed at Tuesday's semi-final in Basel's St Jakobshalle. These are the ones who made the cut.

• Norway: Kyle Alessandro – Lighter
• Albania: Shkodra Elektronike – Zjerm
• Sweden: KAJ – Bara Bada Bastu
• Iceland: VÆB – RÓA
• Netherlands: Claude – C'est La Vie
• Poland: Justyna Steczkowska – GAJA
• San Marino: Gabry Ponte – Tutta L'Italia
• Estonia: Tommy Cash – Espresso Macchiato
• Portugal: NAPA – Deslocado
• Ukraine: Ziferblat – Bird of Pray

That means that the Eurovision dreams of Azerbaijan, Belgium, Cyprus, Croatia and Slovenia have all ended for 2025.

Of those, the biggest surprise was Belgium's Red Sebastian, whose rave anthem Strobe Lights had been predicted to finish among the top five.

His disqualification came on the day of his 26th birthday.

Ten more acts will progress to the main competition after Thursday's second semi-final.

The "Big Five" countries, who contribute the most financially to the competition (France, Germany, Spain, the UK and Italy) qualify automatically, as do last year's winners, Switzerland.

Dion's video message came during the ceremony's interval, as votes were being cast.

Although she was unable to be there in person, it was a coup for organisers. The singer has stepped away from the limelight in recent years due to health issues related to stiff-person syndrome (SPS), a neurological condition that causes muscle spasms and makes it difficult for her to walk.

After a four-year break, she made an emotional comeback at last summer's Paris Olympics, singing Edith Piaf's classic Hymne à l'Amour from the Eiffel Tower.

Speculation over a potential Eurovision appearance has been mounting since Swiss singer Nemo won the 2024 contest.

In her video, Dion said it was "beautiful and emotional" to see the young singer lift the trophy, and recalled that her victory in 1988 "was a life-changing moment for me".

"To the people of Switzerland, thank you for your love," she continued. "This night is yours and I hope you feel as proud as I do."

After repeating her message in French, several former Eurovision contestants appeared on stage to cover Dion's winning song from 1988, Ne Partez Pas Sans Moi (Don't Leave Without Me).

However, organisers said they had not given up hope of the star appearing at the final this weekend.

"We are still in close contact with her," they said in a statement.

Tuesday's semi-final opened with Icelandic group VÆB, two brothers with the unregulated energy of former Irish entrants Jedward.

They were followed by Polish star Justyna Steczkowska, who hung precariously above the stage on two ropes, as she sang her witchy hymn to mother earth, Gaja.

The acrobatics continued with Slovenian musician Klemen, who was suspended upside down during his ballad How Much Time Do We Have Left?

The song was a tribute to his wife, who has recently recovered from cancer, but the emotional performance wasn't enough to clinch him a position in the final.

Taking a lighter note was Estonia's Tommy Cash, whose quirky anthem Espresso Macchiato was interrupted by a "stage invader" - actually a dancer who replicated his noodle-limbed dance moves.

The arena was awash with Ukranian flags for Ziferblat, whose prog-pop anthem Bird Of Pray is a message of hope and resilience to families separated by the country's ongoing war with Russia.

Italy's Lucio Corsi brought 70s glam rock vibes with his track Volevo Esse Un Duro, which even featured a visual call-back to David Bowie and Mick Ronson's iconic 1972 performance of Starman on Top Of The Pops.

Bosnian singer Marko Bošnjak was all black eyeliner and sinister energy for his kill-your-enemies anthem Poison Cake, while Dutch singer Claude took the opposite approach, brimming with positivity throughout his upbeat performance of C'est La Vie.

And Swiss singer Zoë Më was bathed in a sea of mobile phone lights as she performed Voyage , an understated and rather beautiful plea for kindness and understanding.

However, KAJ were the artists to beat - with the entire audience stomping along to their goofy sauna anthem ("Damn it, turn up the heat!")

The song, performed in the Vörå dialect, is a radical departure from Sweden's tried and tested formula of slick pop anthems.

It was the surprise winner at the Melodifestivalen, the hotly-contested show that selects the country's Eurovision entry, and has gone on to top the Swedish pop charts for 11 weeks.

Speaking to the BBC, the band - who are actually from the Swedish-speaking part of Finland - said it was strange to enter the contest as the presumed favourite.

"We are feeling the pressure a bit," they admitted, "but we're gonna go out there, have fun, bring the steam, bring the sauna culture, and we'll see how far it goes."

The Scottish Parliament has given its initial backing to legislation to legalise assisted dying.

A bill tabled by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur passed its first parliamentary vote by 70 to 56, with one abstention.

But there is still a way to go if it is to become law, and that is not a guaranteed outcome.

A number of MSPs who voted for the proposal voiced reservations and said they wanted to see changes made.

How did the debate play out, and where does it go from here?

It is a landmark moment at Holyrood as the parliament has taken a step closer to legalising assisted dying.

It's a huge result for supporters of the legislation - 70 votes in favour is better even than what McArthur's team had been expecting.

And it underlines the change that has taken place in parliament - it's almost double the number of MSPs (36) who backed the last proposal tabled at Holyrood 10 years ago.

However, many members were clear that this is far from a full stop. A lot more work is still to be done on this legislation.

It was also clear that many felt the pressure of making a decision which is literally about life and death.

These debates are often referred to as "parliament at its best".

That does lead one to briefly wonder about why that phrase is always attached to moments where the whips step back and allow MSPs to speak as individuals.

Perhaps the place would be better off without the partisan influence of the party system.

In any case, it is fair to reflect on the passionately-held views voiced across the chamber, and how they were respectfully heard.

Personal stories

SNP MSP Elena Whitham talked about her mother starving herself to death while suffering from advanced cancer - a process which took two agonising weeks.

You could see Patrick Harvie sitting behind her on the verge of tears before the whole chamber broke into applause.

Edward Mountain spoke against, having pondered his own mortality after his diagnosis with bowel cancer.

Meanwhile, his Tory colleague Sandesh Gulhane is in the position of potentially playing a part in the system in his other job as a doctor.

He talked about the devastation of "hearing families plead through tears that they wouldn't let a dog die like this".

It's striking that powerful contributions were welcomed across the board.

There was none of the partisan us-against-them which often dominates parliamentary debate.

Every member present applauded McArthur when he closed the debate.

There was also some consensus around related issues.

Everyone seemed to agree there is a need for better palliative care, and the government has pledged to bring forward a strategy and delivery plan in the summer.

Plenty of MSPs had personal stories to recount.

The SNP's George Adam spoke movingly about his wife Stacey, who has multiple sclerosis - and who he said should have the right to choose how her life ends.

Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour talked from the perspective of a disabled person, who could feel a burden to their family. Both said they worried the bill could be a slippery slope.

Many others did not have that kind of direct experience, or the religious conviction driving the position of some. But they certainly heard plenty about the issue, in parliament and beyond.

One MSP told the BBC she received more than 200 emails the night before the vote. Another said he got about 1,600 over the week building up to it.

Labour's deputy leader Jackie Baillie told the chamber that she was still receiving correspondence moments before heading into the debate.

Reciting some of the examples of deeply personal testimony she had been sent, she said that "all of these stories weigh heavily in our decision-making".

We also may never know how big of an impact the interventions from the likes of John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon had.

While they didn't mount campaigns or try to nudge members into backing their position, the arguments of leadership figures could have had outsize influence in the minds of swithering backbenchers.

Ultimately this was a day for ordinary members. Neil Gray was the only minister to speak in the debate - and even then to underline that he was going to abstain as health secretary.

Party leaders largely stayed out of it too - including Anas Sarwar, to the extent that he didn't even appear to be present.

The Labour leader did register a vote against the bill, but spent the day posting pictures online of himself campaigning in a by-election contest.

There was another theme which crept into the debate - that as pivotal as this moment was, it was far from the final word on this issue.

Labour's Daniel Johnson was the first to say he was voting in favour at stage one, but would "reserve judgement" on the final form of the bill.

He is one of a decent number of members who voiced concerns about various details, but who want the debate to continue through the parliamentary process.

Green MSP Ross Greer put it clearly - he has serious reservations about whether any system of assisted dying could be safe or compassionate.

But he added: "It is parliament's job to wrestle with the most difficult issues facing our society - this issue deserves the opportunity of more detailed scrutiny and for changes to be proposed."

Changes are possible

Stage one is a vote on general principles and the detail of a bill can then be refined to almost any extent when it is amended at stage two.

Consider the government's National Care Service bill, which was amended at stage two to remove the National Care Service. Widespread changes are entirely possible.

Another Labour member, Colin Smyth, said that if this was the final stage three vote, he would be voting against the bill.

But because there is still the scope for it to be amended, he was happy to help it along to the next stage to see how it develops.

This is a double-edged sword. Members may be happy to carry out further work on the bill, but they are under absolutely no illusions about the gravity of that work.

Speech after speech underlined the life-or-death nature of these decisions. There is zero margin for error in making sure the bill is up to scratch.

And if seven members decide that it's not, and opt to switch sides, then the bill could still fall when it comes to the final vote at stage three.

We already know that a number of changes are going to be made during stage two when the health committee starts considering amendments to the bill.

We have seen something similar happen with the Westminster bill on the same topic.

McArthur has already promised to increase the starting age limit from 16 to 18.

And the committee itself has highlighted a range of areas which need attention, including rules around residency and how to fairly assess the decision-making capacity of people with mental disorders.

There are also questions about how it would be paid for given there are many pressures on the health budget as it stands.

The Scottish government has noted that some kind of deal with Westminster will be needed as powers over the drugs which would be involved are not in Holyrood's remit.

It is going to be critical to hammer out every one of these issues if the bill is to become law.

It needs to be absolutely watertight if it is to carry a majority in the final vote.

As Tory MSP Brian Whittle said: "We cannot afford to make a single mistake."

So the work is far from done, and the campaigns will no doubt continue - as will the flow of emails into parliamentary inboxes.

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.

A bill to legalise assisted dying in Scotland has passed an initial vote at Holyrood.

The proposals would allow terminally-ill, mentally competent adults to seek medical help to end their lives.

A vote on the bill's general principles passed by 70 votes to 56.

It would need to clear two more phases of parliamentary scrutiny before it could become law.

The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill would allow people to request medical assistance to end their own life – but only if they had a terminal illness and had been ruled mentally fit to make the decision by two doctors.

During a highly emotional but measured debate, MSPs cited powerful testimony from family members and constituents.

Supporters described the bill as a progressive move to ease the suffering of dying Scots.

However opponents raised concerns about safeguards for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, the bill was the third proposed assisted dying law to be voted on at Holyrood since 2010. The two previous bills failed to pass stage one.

McArthur told BBC Scotland News he was "delighted" and "relieved" but said there was more work to be done.

It comes after a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales passed a stage one vote at Westminster in November.

Opening the debate, an emotional McArthur told MSPs: "Today we can take a significant step forward giving terminally ill adults across Scotland more choice.

"It's a brave step, yes, but it's a compassionate one.

"And it is a step I believe Scotland is ready to take."

The Scottish Parliament held a free vote on the bill – meaning MSPs were not told how to vote by their parties or the government.

The proposals were supported by Conservative leader Russell Findlay and Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton, as well as Scottish Green co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater.

The Scottish government is officially neutral on the matter. Health Secretary Neil Gray, who spoke on behalf of the government during the debate, abstained from the vote.

First Minister John Swinney and Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes confirmed before the debate that they would not support the bill, as did Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.

Swinney said the bill had been debated with "dignity, courtesy and respect".

He added that "significant issues" about the bill would be raised at the next stage of parliamentary scrutiny.

'Deeply worried'

Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, the first permanent wheelchair user to be elected to Holyrood, has been among the most vocal critics of the bill.

She told parliament she was "deeply worried" about the consequences of legalising assisted dying, which she said could put disabled people at risk.

The MSP said if the bill passed she feared it would "be easier to access help to die than help to live".

She warned it could "legitimise a view that a life like ours, one of dependence and often pain, is not worth living".

Others opposed to the bill, including former first minster Nicola Sturgeon, have raised concerns about the potential for "coercion" and warned the definition of a terminal illness was too broad.

Ex-Tory leader Douglas Ross echoed concerns that the legislation would lead to a so-called slippery slope, fearing that access to assisted dying would widen over time.

Several parliamentarians spoke of their own relatives' experiences.

SNP MSP Elena Whitham told parliament about her mother, Irene, who died aged 58 just five weeks after being diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2014.

"Her last decision on this earth was to starve herself to hasten her inevitable death," Whitham said. "It was awful."

She added: "My mum deserved to plan a compassionate death.

"No-one should be forced to starve themselves."

McArthur insisted the bill would impose "strict eligibility criteria" and that concerns about a "slippery slope" had been raised in countries where assisted dying had since been successfully introduced.

Addressing concerns for disabled people, he said: "Denying dying Scots more choice will not enhance the lives of those with a disability, nor do I believe would it be acceptable for a person with a disability who meets the eligibility criteria under my bill to be denied the same choice as anyone else."

MSPs will be able to further scrutinise the bill at stage two, where they can also propose changes.

Another vote on the final draft of the bill would need to be held before it could become legislation.

The most recent Holyrood vote on assisted dying, in 2015, was defeated at stage one by 82 votes to 36.

That bill was tabled by the late independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who died in 2014 after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.

US President Donald Trump has said his administration wants to accept a plane worth an estimated $400m (£303m) as a gift from Qatar, calling it "a great gesture" that he would be "stupid" to turn down.

The potential move has been labelled "wildly illegal" by some members of the rival Democratic Party - something the White House denies - and it has attracted criticism from some of Trump's supporters.

Qatar itself earlier said the reports about the plane were "inaccurate", and that negotiations were continuing.

The news comes as Trump visits several countries in the Middle East, including Qatar.

BBC Verify has been looking into the legality of presidents accepting gifts.

What do we know about the plane?

On Sunday, US media reported that the Trump administration was preparing to accept a Boeing jumbo jet from the Qatari royal family - saying that the plane would be refitted and used temporarily as Air Force One, the name for the plane used by presidents.

Trump later posted on Truth Social: "The Defense Department is getting a gift, free of charge, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40-year-old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction."

When questioned by reporters, Trump said: "It's a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer."

In February, Trump said he was "not happy with Boeing" about delays to two new Air Force One jets that he is expecting to receive directly from the firm. He added that the White House could instead "buy a plane or get a plane, or something".

The Qatari plane was pictured in Palm Beach, Florida, in February where Trump inspected it. It is currently fitted with three bedrooms, a private lounge and an office, according to its specification summary document from 2015.

A Qatari official has told CNN the plane is being given from the Qatari defence ministry to the Pentagon, and that it will be modified to meet Air Force One's safety and security standards.

Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term.

Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.

Nonetheless, the move has led to criticism from Democrats as well as some long-time Trump supporters, including Laura Loomer who said: "This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true."

Is the gift legal?

Several senior Democrats have claimed that accepting the gift would be illegal.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff quoted a section of the US Constitution that said no elected official could accept "any present... of any kind whatever" from the leader of a foreign state without congressional approval.

Frank Cogliano, a professor of US history and a constitutional expert at the University of Edinburgh, says this clause "was intended to prevent bribery to influence the government".

"It is certainly stretching the Constitution and we have not seen a gift on this scale, or of this nature", says Professor Andrew Moran, a constitutional expert at London Metropolitan University.

There have been a number of other laws passed by Congress relating to the acceptance of foreign gifts, such as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, which means that congressional consent is required for the acceptance of foreign gifts above a certain value.

Currently US officials can accept gifts valued at less than $480 (£363).

Although Trump has referred to the plane ultimately going to his "library", experts have suggested he really means his museum foundation.

Ex-presidents typically have a library housing their archive of documents, and a museum - typically funded by private donations - full of memorabilia and open to the public.

Experts who BBC Verify spoke to said the fact that the plane could be given to the administration - and not to the president directly - before being transferred to his museum, may not get around the potential violation of the constitution.

Jordan Libowitz - from the organisation Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - said any use of the plane by Trump after leaving office would cross a line: "Reagan's Air Force One ended up in his presidential library, but there's a difference there. The plane was decommissioned, Reagan never flew on it again, and it sits inside as a museum piece."

The US Justice Department has reportedly drafted a memo explaining why it thinks accepting the jet would be permissible, although this has not been made public.

When the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt was asked about the legality of the deal, she said: "The legal details of that are still being worked out, but of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law."

What is Trump's family doing in the Middle East?

President Trump is on a four-day trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, hoping to drum up investment for the US.

His visit follows a series of business deals announced by the Trump Organization, which is run by the president's sons, Eric and Donald Jr.

These include plans to build golf courses and luxury villas in Qatar and the UAE.

President Trump is not currently affiliated with the Trump Organization, having handed over management responsibilities to his children after entering the White House on 20 January.

A deal was announced by the Trump Organization at the beginning of May to develop a Trump-branded luxury 18-hole golf course and a collection of luxury villas north of Qatar's capital, Doha.

At the time, Eric Trump said: "We are incredibly proud to expand the Trump brand into Qatar through this exceptional collaboration with Qatari Diar and Dar Global."

Dar Global is a publicly owned Saudi construction company; Qatari Diar is a Qatari state-owned company.

Separately, on 30 April, the Trump Organization announced it would build "the region's first Trump International Hotel & Tower" in the "heart of Dubai" consisting of 80 floors of "luxury living and world-class hospitality".

Eric Trump also visited the UAE recently, speaking at Token 2049, a cryptocurrency conference, on 1 May.

Asked if Trump was likely to meet anyone involved in the family business during his trip, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was "ridiculous" to suggest the president was doing anything for his own benefit.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

An Israeli air strike has killed at least six people and injured dozens at the European Gaza hospital in Khan Younis, local officials have said.

Israeli warplanes dropped six bombs simultaneously on the hospital, hitting both its inner courtyard and surrounding area, according to local sources.

The Israeli military said it had conducted a "precise strike" on a Hamas base, which it claimed is beneath the hospital.

A freelance journalist working for the BBC in Gaza was also injured in the air strike and is now in a stable condition after receiving medical attention.

The dead and wounded have been transferred to Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. local sources have said.

The emergency department of this hospital was hit by another strike earlier on Tuesday, according to medical sources and eyewitnesses.

The strike resulted in several deep craters inside the hospital compound, which buried several vehicles including a large bus.

Israeli media is reporting the target of the strike was senior Hamas figure Mohammed Sinwar - the younger brother of the former Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar.

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.

A masked gang have tried to abduct the daughter and young grandson of a cryptocurrency chief in Paris, but after a violent struggle they drove off empty-handed.

The botched kidnap bid was captured on video by an onlooker in Paris's 11th district, in the east of the French capital.

Police sources said the woman was the daughter of a cryptocurrency company boss. She and her husband fought off three attackers until passers by rushed to their aid and the men fled in a van.

A Paris police brigade that tackles armed robbery is expected to investigate the attack, which is the latest in a series of abductions targeting French cryptocurrency figures or their relatives.

The attack unfolded at about 08:20 local time on Tuesday, according to local media, when three men leapt from a white van and tried to kidnap the mother and her child.

The pair are described as relatives of the co-founder of French Bitcoin exchange platform Paymium, the AFP news agency said.

The woman's husband who was with his family at the time tried to protect them and was beaten repeatedly over the head. The couple shouted for help as the masked men tried to pull them apart.

At one point she was seen to grab a firearm off the attacker and throw it into the street. The weapon was later described as a replica air gun.

The street was relatively busy at the time and a group of children were on their way to a local primary school.

Initially, passers by appeared too afraid to intervene, but as locals began to react the three attackers eventually gave up and jumped into the van as a fourth gang member drove them away. One man hurled a fire extinguisher at the van as it sped off.

The family was treated for minor injuries in hospital.

The botched kidnapping in the Rue Pache came little more than a week after French police rescued the father of a cryptocurrency millionaire who had been kidnapped in another area of the capital while walking his dog and held for ransom.

In an indication of the brutality of the gangs involved, the victim was freed three days later after his kidnappers had cut off one of his fingers.

Several people were arrested.

Last January, David Balland, co-founder of cryptocurrency wallet firm Ledger, was abducted with his wife at their home in central France.

French media say the victim had one finger missing when he was rescued from a house in Palaiseau, south of Paris.

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich MP Patrick Spencer has been charged with two counts of sexual assault which allegedly happened at London's Groucho Club in August 2023, the Metropolitan Police said.

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

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

US President Donald Trump has said his administration wants to accept a plane worth an estimated $400m (£303m) as a gift from Qatar, calling it "a great gesture" that he would be "stupid" to turn down.

The potential move has been labelled "wildly illegal" by some members of the rival Democratic Party - something the White House denies - and it has attracted criticism from some of Trump's supporters.

Qatar itself earlier said the reports about the plane were "inaccurate", and that negotiations were continuing.

The news comes as Trump visits several countries in the Middle East, including Qatar.

BBC Verify has been looking into the legality of presidents accepting gifts.

What do we know about the plane?

On Sunday, US media reported that the Trump administration was preparing to accept a Boeing jumbo jet from the Qatari royal family - saying that the plane would be refitted and used temporarily as Air Force One, the name for the plane used by presidents.

Trump later posted on Truth Social: "The Defense Department is getting a gift, free of charge, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40-year-old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction."

When questioned by reporters, Trump said: "It's a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer."

In February, Trump said he was "not happy with Boeing" about delays to two new Air Force One jets that he is expecting to receive directly from the firm. He added that the White House could instead "buy a plane or get a plane, or something".

The Qatari plane was pictured in Palm Beach, Florida, in February where Trump inspected it. It is currently fitted with three bedrooms, a private lounge and an office, according to its specification summary document from 2015.

A Qatari official has told CNN the plane is being given from the Qatari defence ministry to the Pentagon, and that it will be modified to meet Air Force One's safety and security standards.

Experts say this is likely to take years, which means the plane may not be ready for use until near the end of Trump's term.

Trump has said the plane will go directly to his presidential library after he leaves office, and that he "wouldn't be using it" after his presidency.

Nonetheless, the move has led to criticism from Democrats as well as some long-time Trump supporters, including Laura Loomer who said: "This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true."

Is the gift legal?

Several senior Democrats have claimed that accepting the gift would be illegal.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff quoted a section of the US Constitution that said no elected official could accept "any present... of any kind whatever" from the leader of a foreign state without congressional approval.

Frank Cogliano, a professor of US history and a constitutional expert at the University of Edinburgh, says this clause "was intended to prevent bribery to influence the government".

"It is certainly stretching the Constitution and we have not seen a gift on this scale, or of this nature", says Professor Andrew Moran, a constitutional expert at London Metropolitan University.

There have been a number of other laws passed by Congress relating to the acceptance of foreign gifts, such as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, which means that congressional consent is required for the acceptance of foreign gifts above a certain value.

Currently US officials can accept gifts valued at less than $480 (£363).

Although Trump has referred to the plane ultimately going to his "library", experts have suggested he really means his museum foundation.

Ex-presidents typically have a library housing their archive of documents, and a museum - typically funded by private donations - full of memorabilia and open to the public.

Experts who BBC Verify spoke to said the fact that the plane could be given to the administration - and not to the president directly - before being transferred to his museum, may not get around the potential violation of the constitution.

Jordan Libowitz - from the organisation Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - said any use of the plane by Trump after leaving office would cross a line: "Reagan's Air Force One ended up in his presidential library, but there's a difference there. The plane was decommissioned, Reagan never flew on it again, and it sits inside as a museum piece."

The US Justice Department has reportedly drafted a memo explaining why it thinks accepting the jet would be permissible, although this has not been made public.

When the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt was asked about the legality of the deal, she said: "The legal details of that are still being worked out, but of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law."

What is Trump's family doing in the Middle East?

President Trump is on a four-day trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, hoping to drum up investment for the US.

His visit follows a series of business deals announced by the Trump Organization, which is run by the president's sons, Eric and Donald Jr.

These include plans to build golf courses and luxury villas in Qatar and the UAE.

President Trump is not currently affiliated with the Trump Organization, having handed over management responsibilities to his children after entering the White House on 20 January.

A deal was announced by the Trump Organization at the beginning of May to develop a Trump-branded luxury 18-hole golf course and a collection of luxury villas north of Qatar's capital, Doha.

At the time, Eric Trump said: "We are incredibly proud to expand the Trump brand into Qatar through this exceptional collaboration with Qatari Diar and Dar Global."

Dar Global is a publicly owned Saudi construction company; Qatari Diar is a Qatari state-owned company.

Separately, on 30 April, the Trump Organization announced it would build "the region's first Trump International Hotel & Tower" in the "heart of Dubai" consisting of 80 floors of "luxury living and world-class hospitality".

Eric Trump also visited the UAE recently, speaking at Token 2049, a cryptocurrency conference, on 1 May.

Asked if Trump was likely to meet anyone involved in the family business during his trip, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was "ridiculous" to suggest the president was doing anything for his own benefit.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?