Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander has said Labour MPs will be feeling "despondent" following a chaotic week which has seen the sacking of Lord Mandelson and the resignation of Angela Rayner.

Sir Keir Starmer is facing questions over why he appointed Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US despite his known links to the convicted paedophile Jeffery Epstein.

The government said Mandelson was dismissed after new information about the extent of the two men's friendship came out this week.

The prime minister is now in the position of searching for a new ambassador to Washington, just days before the US President arrives for a state visit.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander said: "Many of us were devastated by [deputy PM] Angela Rayner's departure from the government last week.

"She's an extraordinary woman who's overcome the most extraordinary challenges and we are grieving and feel quite acutely that sense of loss.

"Now to have the dismissal of Peter Mandelson just the next week, I totally get it, of course Labour MPs will be despondent that in two weeks in a row we have seen significant resignations from public service.

"These are not the headlines any of us in government or in Parliament would have chosen or wanted.

"But the fact is when the evidence emerged, action had to be taken and we are looking forward, therefore, to moving on."

Some Labour MPs have expressed anger at how the situation with Mandelson has been handled.

Paula Barker - who dropped out of the deputy Labour leader race on Thursday - said: "The delay in sacking him has only served to further erode the trust and confidence in our government and politics in the round."

Charlotte Nichols said Mandelson's sacking was "not immediate enough unfortunately, as he should never have been appointed in the first place".

Sadik Al-Hassan said there were "serious questions about the vetting process of the ambassador".

Prince Harry has visited Kyiv after an invitation by the Ukrainian government, the Guardian has reported.

The Duke of Sussex said he wanted to do "everything possible" to help the recovery of military staff injured in the war with Russia.

He is set to detail new initiatives to help the rehabilitation of those wounded during the trip alongside a team from his Invictus Games Foundation, the paper reports.

It comes after he met his father King Charles in London on Wednesday - their first face to face meeting since February 2024.

The prince said he was initially invited by the founder of the Superhumans Trauma Centre in Lviv, which he visited in April to meet war victims being rehabilitated.

Ahead of the visit, he told the Guardian: "We cannot stop the war but what we can do is do everything we can to help the recovery process."

"We can continue to humanise the people involved in this war and what they are going through."

Prince Harry launched the Invictus Games in 2014 for wounded veterans to compete in sports events. During its opening ceremony in 2022, when Ukraine's team was given special permission to compete by President Volodymyr Zelensky, the prince said the world was "united" with Ukraine.

Other members of the Royal Family have expressed support for Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

The King welcomed Zelensky to his Sandringham estate in Norfolk in March, having previously said Ukraine had faced "indescribable aggression" from Russia.

The Prince of Wales, Harry's brother, met Ukrainian refugees during a two-day visit to Estonia in March - where he said their resilience was "amazing".

Michelle and John Wylie had a blissful November wedding four years ago at a boutique hotel on the South Ayrshire coast, surrounded by friends, loved ones – and one complete stranger.

The couple noticed the mystery wedding crasher only when they received photos of their big day – a tall man in a dark suit, with a noticeable look of puzzlement on his face.

They quizzed relatives, friends and staff at the venue, even asking the wedding photographer about the guest. No-one could provide any answers.

But now, after an internet sleuth joined the search, the mystery man has finally been identified.

Andrew Hillhouse, who was supposed to be a guest at another wedding two miles away, told BBC Scotland News he only realised he was at the wrong venue when the bride walked down the aisle.

Michelle and John were married on 20 November 2021 at the Carlton Hotel in Prestwick, surrounded by family and friends - or so they thought.

"It wasn't until I got the first few photos back from the photographer and me and my husband were looking at them that we went 'who's that?'," recalls Michelle, who lives in Kilmarnock.

"We started asking our parents first of all, then going through my aunties and the rest of the family, then my friends. Absolutely no-one knew who he was.

"Then we got on to the Carlton Hotel if they had an idea, but nope. We wondered if this was someone who had been helping bring the register down, but not a single person knew who he was."

A Facebook post by the bride did not provide any answers either, and as time passed trying to solve the mystery fell by the wayside.

However Michelle told the BBC it kept niggling away at the back of her mind.

"It would come into my head and I'd be like 'someone must know who this guy is'. I said a few times to my husband 'are you sure you don't know this guy, is he maybe from your work?'

"We wondered if he was a mad stalker."

Other theories included a new partner of the daughter of family friends or someone helping wedding photographer Steven Withers.

Then an appeal to content creator Dazza, asking him to share their pictures and attempt to track the wedding crasher down, finally revealed the man's identity.

On that same Saturday in November 2021 Andrew Hillhouse was running late for a wedding. With five minutes to spare, he pulled up at the venue he'd been told to go to, hurried in, and took his seat.

His partner David was to be among the bridal party, and Andrew was relieved to be there on time.

It was when the bridal party began walking down the aisle that a sinking feeling crept in.

"I assumed David was in another room with the bride so the music starts up, everyone turns around to look at the bride and the second I see her I'm like 'oh no, that's not Michaela, what's going on here?'," he says.

"But I was committed at that point, because you can't walk out of a wedding in progress so I thought I better double down. I'm 6ft 2in and I'm taller than everyone else, so I was trying to hunch down a bit and get out the way.

"I was just sitting there thinking 'please, let this be over with'."

Andrew's partner had given him completely the wrong venue - the wedding he was supposed to be attending was taking place at the Great Western Hotel in Ayr.

He only knew his partner and the bride to be, which is why he didn't raise any eyebrows at not recognising anyone else in attendance.

"There was a piper playing outside, and all these well dressed people, so I thought I was in the right place."

Once the ceremony ended, Andrew, who is from Troon, headed for the exit to phone David, only to find he couldn't escape just yet.

"I make a beeline for the doors, and hear 'can we get everyone together for a picture' and I was just going 'noooo' inside.

"So you can see my big head in the back row, trying to get out the way."

Andrew was finally able to get out, though he admittedly took a drink of cola on the way. He phoned his partner to ask where they were, and it was only then he realised how far away he'd been sent.

"He told me they were taking photos at the fountain, and I'm looking around going 'where is this fountain?' Eventually I asked where they were and he tells me they're at the hotel in Ayr."

He was then able to go the actual wedding he was planning to attend, where his mishap provided a fun tale for the other guests.

Finally a friend sent him the social media appeal, and he was able to explain online why he was there four years ago.

Andrew's explanation for his unintentional gate-crashing on Dazza's social media post garnered more than 600 comments and over 29,000 likes.

It has also put him in touch with the bride Michelle - the pair are now Facebook friends and have since met in person to share a laugh about their unlikely connection.

"I could not stop laughing," says Michelle.

"We can't believe we've found out who he is after almost four years."

"Michelle said I'd been haunting her for years," Andrew adds.

"It was much easier to crash a wedding than I'd have thought – I was in and out like an assassin, even if I only got a bottle of cola for it all!"

The UK economy failed to grow in July, according to the latest official figures.

The Office for National Statistics said the economy saw zero growth in the month, following a 0.4% expansion in June.

The government is under mounting pressure to deliver on its key priority of boosting economic growth as the next Budget is coming up.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will outline the government's tax and spending plans on 26 November with increasing speculation she will have to raise taxes.

"It was really bad – we had patients dying on the waiting lists – politicians were getting desperate."

Jesper Fisker, chief executive of the Danish Cancer Society, is looking back 25 years - to the moment Denmark decided to transform its approach to treating cancer.

At that point, he says, the country did not have a strong record.

"It was a disaster," he recalls. "We saw Danish patients out of their own pocket paying for tickets to China to get all sorts of treatments – endangering their health."

Some went to private hospitals in Germany that offered new treatments unavailable in Denmark.

Back then, Denmark's record on cancer was low compared to that of other rich countries. But so was the UK's.

From 1995 to 1999, Denmark's five-year survival rate for rectal cancer was essentially tied with the UK's, on around 48%, according to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a research body. It put both nations well below countries like Australia, which had a 59% rate.

Now, thanks to a bold plan, Denmark's performance on cancer has jumped ahead. By 2014, its five-year survival rate for rectal cancer had risen to 69%, close to Australia's. (The UK's rose too, but only to 62%.)

Analysts think the trend has probably continued (though these are the most up-to-date figures available). And it's a similar story for other cancers, including colon, stomach, and lung.

This Danish success story has caught the attention of UK policymakers. Health Secretary Wes Streeting says that aspects of the Danish model are feeding into government plans.

Some could well be included in a new long-term cancer plan for England, due to be published in the autumn.

So, what's their secret, and can the NHS learn from Denmark?

Big investments and thoughtful touches

Walking today into Herlev Hospital on the outskirts of Copenhagen makes for a rather different experience to arriving at an average NHS hospital.

The foyer is hung with bright, vivid paintings by the Danish artist Poul Gernes. There are 65 in all.

The philosophy is that endless white walls can unnerve patients, while colour can be a pleasant distraction from their problems.

It is a sign of the attention Denmark has paid to even the atmosphere of hospitals - small, thoughtful touches, alongside investment in more traditional equipment.

Dr Michael Andersen, a consultant radiologist and associate professor at the hospital, shows off a high-tech scanner, only the fourth of its kind used by any hospital around the world.

Buying hospital equipment like this - particularly scanners - has been central to Denmark's cancer strategy.

"In 2008 the government made the decision to make a heavy investment into scanner systems," Dr Andersen explains. "They purchased between 30 and 60 - they're an integral part of the way we work."

Particularly important for cancer are CT scanners, which look deep inside a person's body. Denmark now has about 30 of them per million people - the average of other rich countries stands at 25.9.

The UK, meanwhile, lags way behind with just 8.8 scanners per million people, according to the 2021 figures.

The investment in cancer equipment, according to experts, led to a huge expansion in diagnostic capacity in Denmark. Unless funding to meet increasing patient demand is made, they argue, England could continue to lag behind on the quality of care.

This all comes despite the fact that Denmark's health spending hasn't seen a huge boost.

Calculated by spending per head of the population, Denmark is ahead; but as a share of national income, its health spending is similar to, and in fact slightly below that of the UK's.

A bold set of plans

This is just one part of a bold plan drawn up by Danish health leaders. Along with introducing new equipment, and rethinking the atmosphere of hospitals, they also made it possible for patients to be treated with chemotherapy at home.

New national standards govern how quickly Danes must be treated: following a referral, a cancer diagnosis has to be given within two weeks. Then, if treatment is required, it has to start within the two weeks of diagnosis.

If these targets are not met patients have the right to transfer to another hospital - or, failing that, another country - whilst still being funded by the Danish health system.

This is quite a contrast to the UK nations. Here, the target is for patients to start treatment within around nine weeks (officially, 62 days) of an urgent cancer referral.

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, believes that there is a lack of accountability in the English health system specifically, with too many NHS organisations. Addressing this, she says, should improve the quality of cancer care.

"That means clarity over who in the government and NHS is responsible for delivering each part of the plan.

"Ultimately, responsibility for the success or failure of the plan should rest with the health and social care secretary."

She points out that there are similarities between England and Denmark's state-run health systems - for example, the roughly similar amount they spend on health as a share of national income, meaning Denmark's example could be followed in England.

But this would require a long-term plan, political leadership, higher investment, more cancer screening, and stronger targets. Which is no easy feat.

Going beyond just 'treating' cancer

Elisabeth Ketelsen, who is 82, is an active person, still swimming in international events - she has broken world records for her age group. But in 2022, she discovered a lump in her breast.

"I saw the doctor on Monday – on the following Thursday I had mammography and a biopsy and from then on it went so quickly my head was spinning, almost."

Just three weeks after the diagnosis Elisabeth, who is from Denmark, had surgery. Radiotherapy started two weeks later.

Last year, the cancer reappeared in her spine and she was immediately prescribed chemotherapy pills and hormone treatment. The cancer stabilised and she has come off chemotherapy.

She has since returned to the swimming pool, competing at an event in Singapore.

"The system works," she tells me.

Not all Danish patients are as complimentary, of course, but Danish health officials say their targets for rapid cancer diagnosis are being met for about 80% of their patients.

This all comes down to the idea that Danish authorities are not just trying to treat cancer; they're also keen to improve the experience of patients.

Counselling houses, where therapy and companionship are offered to patients, have opened up across the country. These are funded largely by the voluntary sector with a small amount of state funding. (These follow a similar model as the Maggie's cancer support charity in the UK.)

Mette Engel, who runs a counselling centre in Copenhagen, tells me mental health is very important in Denmark's cancer plan.

"We see ourselves as a national part of this support system."

Benefits of chemotherapy at home

Denmark's move to start treating more cancer patients away from hospitals is also part of this wider shift of Danish healthcare from hospitals into communities.

Michael Ziegler, mayor of Høje-Taastrup Municipality near Copenhagen, was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2022. After a stem cell transplant, he was back at work within seven months.

Ziegler had chemotherapy in his own home, using what's known as a chemo pump.

"I could have some quality of life, being able to do things at home I wanted to do instead of being stuck in a hospital room," he says.

"I also think at hospitals there is always at risk of getting infections. The chemo has the effect of reducing my immune system to a very low level so I am vulnerable to infections."

There haven't yet been any major studies and so hard data is limited, but it's thought by some that at-home chemo could potentially boost survival chances by lowering the risk of a patient catching an infection while in hospital.

His cancer has since returned and he will be restarting treatment, including more chemotherapy and a new stem cell transplant.

He says he is "feeling optimistic".

A blueprint for the NHS?

The Danish health system has certain parallels with the NHS - not least as both are mainly funded by taxpayers.

The two nations also face similar challenges when considering the overall health of the population. Alcohol consumption is similar in both nations, though obesity levels in Denmark are lower and smoking rates are higher. (One Danish health leader told me that they were envious of UK initiatives on smoking, with the minimum age for tobacco sales rising each year.)

However, there are certain challenges specific to the UK: the population of England, for example, is nearly 10 times larger than Denmark's population. And the NHS is a complex organisation.

Still, ministers have made no secret of their interest in the Danish system, with an official visit earlier this year.

Wes Streeting, the UK Health Secretary, says: "Denmark's healthcare system is known the world over for its excellence, having transformed outcomes through its cancer plans, and Health Minister Karin Smyth's trip to the country earlier this year offered us vital insights up close."

Mr Streeting says these insights have "fed into" government health plans to "speed up cancer diagnoses and deliver cutting edge treatments to the NHS front line quicker".

Michelle Mitchell of Cancer Research UK agrees that Denmark offers a useful template. "They are diagnosing cancer earlier, people are surviving longer, more people are taking up screening – all of those factors as well as investment in workforce and kit are critical components of a cancer plan."

She argues that British health ministers could move towards Danish-style national waiting time targets rather than the UK's current system of "benchmarks", which are weaker and haven't been met since 2015.

'This is unfinished business'

The greater challenge for the NHS though, is that there are so many other problems - crowded A&E departments, overstretched staff and, as one analyst put it, "multiple fires burning" - meaning that it can be difficult to persuade health leaders to focus on cancer survival.

Ruth Thorlby, assistant director of policy at The Health Foundation think tank, says that policymakers in London and Copenhagen both realised at the same time, in the 1990s, that cancer needed urgent attention and urgent plans were drawn up.

But whilst Danish policymakers saw policies through, she argues that in the UK the momentum "dissipated", as other priorities and short-term problems emerged.

"This is unfinished business - over the last decade there has been a move away from cancer plans," she says.

At the heart of Denmark's success was a sense of political consensus. From the 1990s onwards, figures from all major parties agreed that cancer should be a priority. This is a level of agreement the UK has not managed to reach, she says.

Mr Fisker of the Danish Cancer Society argues that the usual cut-and-thrust of party politics needs to be set aside. "Politicians must promise each other there is going to be a long, lasting partnership. And health leaders need to operate on a 10-, 15-, 20-year basis," he says - longer than the life of any one government or party.

But does he think that's possible in the UK? After all, Westminster is not known for much long-term, cross-party thinking.

"If you are really decisive, if you really want to do this and are committed to it over a period of time, and you are also ready to invest then I think it can be done," he says.

With a pause, he adds: "Nothing comes without investment."

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.

Stephen Lawrence's mother has urged witnesses to come forward with information about her son's murder, as an official review - triggered by a BBC investigation - has begun.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence told BBC News the review was the "last opportunity" for full justice and said she cannot grieve until that is achieved.

Investigators working for the College of Policing are examining information held by the Metropolitan Police to identify any outstanding lines of inquiry.

In a statement, the College said the review was being "conducted independently of the Met Police".

Baroness Lawrence told the BBC she hoped people who hold information about the murder will now feel able to talk.

She said there were "reasons why they felt they couldn't do it at the time".

"This is the last opportunity that we're going to have to get the complete justice that I think Stephen so deserves.

"So I would like to ask them, whatever they felt at the time, or whatever happened if they tried to help, please come forward now."

The review was announced last year following a series of BBC reports which publicly named a sixth suspect in the murder, exposed a series of police failings, and led to an apology from Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to Baroness Lawrence for broken promises by the force.

A long process of negotiation followed over what the review would examine - with the Met conceding a series of key demands by the Lawrence family, including the full involvement of Clive Driscoll, the retired Met detective who achieved two murder convictions in the case.

In 2014, Mr Driscoll was replaced as senior investigating officer by the Met before he could complete his inquiry.

The review team will be led by a recently retired senior detective who had a career outside the Met.

It will seek to identify if any lines of enquiry were missed, not pursued properly, or now require a fresh approach.

One focus of the review will be the news reports by the BBC. If viable lines of inquiry are identified, they will be passed to an independent investigative body.

Institutionally racist

Stephen was 18 when he was stabbed to death in a racist attack in Eltham, south London, in April 1993. He had been waiting for a bus with his friend Duwayne Brooks, who said there were six attackers.

The Met's failures to properly investigate the five prime suspects in the case became notorious and led to the force being branded "institutionally racist" by a landmark public inquiry. Two of Stephen's murderers were finally convicted in 2012, but the other suspects have remained free.

The murder investigation was closed in 2020, with the Met saying everything possible had been done.

Baroness Lawrence told the BBC that key suspects, brothers Neil and Jamie Acourt, have "been sitting quite pretty".

"They believe they've got away with it, and the police have allowed them to think that they've got away with it," she said. The Acourt brothers have always denied being involved with the murder.

Two years ago, the BBC publicity identified a sixth suspect, Matthew White, who died in 2021 and exposed a series of failures by the Met relating to him. Evidence that implicates White also implicates the key outstanding suspects.

"It's been going on for 32 years, and we haven't come to an end of it," said Baroness Lawrence.

"Most people have come to the end and [are] allowed to grieve in private. We haven't been given that opportunity."

The Met said its objective remains "to achieve the arrest, prosecution and conviction of all of those responsible for Stephen's murder".

A spokesman added: "The review is being led by an experienced investigator working for the College and will focus on identifying any outstanding lines of enquiry which could reasonably lead to a suspect being brought to justice."

The review team can be contacted at StephenLawrenceReview@college.police.uk.

Israel's military operation in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of buildings, and severely restricted the supply of food.

The operation was launched after Hamas rampaged through villages, military posts and a music festival in Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. The United Nations' (UN) human rights body would later conclude that Hamas had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time that "like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself". He argues his country's military operation in Gaza is a "just war" with the goals of destroying Hamas and bringing home all the hostages.

In January 2024, he said that "Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering". That commitment is coming under ever-increasing scrutiny.

Leading human rights organisations and some countries accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and acts of genocide. Netanyahu denies this and has strongly criticised such allegations.

An important aspect of how international law applies to wars is the principle of proportionality.

In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, it means that "the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought".

BBC Verify has spoken to a range of international law experts to ask whether they consider Israel's actions to have been proportionate.

The vast majority of them, with different degrees of certainty, told us that Israel's actions are not proportionate. In drawing that conclusion, some reference Israel's conduct of the whole war, some focus on events in recent months.

"I would struggle to see how Israel's military conduct in Gaza could potentially be characterised as proportionate," says Prof Janina Dill from the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford.

Dr Maria Varaki, from Kings College London, told us that "it is undisputable, non-disputable, actually, that the use of force in Gaza has been disproportionate".

Prof Yuval Shany, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, states: "The military campaign can no longer be seen as proportionate."

And Prof Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, who was the lead author of the IDF's first code of ethics, told us the number of non-combatants killed "seems too high to be taken to result from reasonable proportionality considerations".

How is proportionality assessed?

International law is made up of a series of agreements that most countries in the world have signed. The agreements detail what states can and can't do. They include the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, both of which Israel is party to and both of which are relevant to proportionality.

International law is not set out in one place, nor is it governed by a central authority. As we will see, its meaning and application are open to considerable debate.

Regarding proportionality, international law addresses this in two distinct ways.

Firstly, when a state has the right to self-defence, the overall military response must be proportionate to the threat being responded to.

In addition, if at any point during the military operation, it ceases to be necessary and proportionate, the right to self-defence no longer applies.

For example, some argue, such has been Israel's success in weakening Hamas, the military operation is no longer proportionate to the threat that Hamas currently poses. This, I should emphasise, is contested.

The second way international law addresses proportionality concerns each individual military action within a conflict, such as an air strike.

The expected harm to civilians or civilian buildings must be proportionate to the expected military advantage gained from that particular action.

Intent is a vital consideration here. What civilian harm is anticipated? And is the expected military advantage proportionate to this?

It is important to emphasise that intentionally harming civilians is always a breach of international law. Proportionality is not a consideration if this is done.

Also, while international law does allow for circumstances in which civilians are killed during the course of a military action, there is always an obligation to minimise civilian harm wherever possible.

Both areas of law are clear: whatever the provocation or the threat, there are rules and limits on what can be done - in the overall response and individual actions. They must be proportionate.

Let's begin with the impact of Israel's overall operation.

Civilian casualties

More than 64,500 people have been killed by Israel during its campaign - almost half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Hamas-run Ministry of Health. The ministry's figures do not distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Israel has challenged the accuracy of the ministry's figures, both the overall number and the demographic breakdown, but they are quoted by the UN and others as the most reliable source of statistics on casualties available.

UN Secretary General António Guterres recently declared "the levels of death and destruction in Gaza are without parallel in recent times".

At the start of the year, the Israeli military said it had killed about 20,000 Hamas operatives, although it has not provided evidence, and does not allow foreign media, including BBC News, free access to Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has not provided any figures for civilian casualties.

The IDF told us that it is "committed to mitigating civilian harm during operational activity" and that it "makes great efforts to estimate and consider potential civilian collateral damage in its strikes".

Israel also accuses Hamas - which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK, Israel and others - of causing casualties by operating within civilian areas.

It has released numerous videos of what it says are Hamas tunnels running under civilian buildings, including hospitals. Israel says Hamas uses these underground networks to plan and organise attacks. Some of the freed hostages have also described being held in tunnels.

Prof Nicholas Rostow, former legal adviser to the US National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and a distinguished research fellow of the National Defense University, argues that "Hamas used hospitals, schools... as a base of military operations, putting civilians at risk. That was their intention".

Because of this, Prof Rostow says he is "not prepared to say that Israel has acted disproportionately". He says he knows how the IDF operates and that it "bend[s] over backwards to respect the laws of war".

But even if that is the case, Israel has still killed tens of thousands of people.

Dr Nimer Sultany, editor-in-chief of The Palestine Yearbook of International Law and chair of the Centre for Palestine Studies at SOAS University of London, is categorical. "Israel's campaign has been disproportionate since October 2023, because of the unprecedented civilian harm it caused in Gaza," he told us.

Gerry Simpson, professor of public international law at the London School of Economics (LSE), told us, referencing the number of people killed and other consequences for Gaza, that: "It is hard to seriously argue that the campaign has been conducted with due regard to the general principles of proportionality and distinction at the heart of the laws of war."

Access to food

The impact on a population's living conditions is another factor in assessing the proportionality of Israel's overall response.

Israel's restricting of goods into Gaza is not new. This was happening before 7 October and increased after the attack.

Then, in early March this year, Israel began a total blockade of aid into Gaza. It said it was doing so to stop Hamas stealing supplies and using them "to finance its terror machine". Hamas denies doing this.

The blockade was condemned by the UN and many countries.

Senior UN officials accused Israel of using food as a "weapon of war", which is a crime under international law. Such actions cannot be proportionate.

"You can never use starvation of either enemy fighters or the civilian population," says Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell, of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "You must permit the entry of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. That is a principle of customary international law. You cannot use starvation. There are certain weapons you can never use."

Benjamin Netanyahu denies this is a weapon that Israel is using.

The UN also accused Israel of "deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians". Israel denies doing this too.

In May, Israel partially eased the aid blockade and introduced a new system of food distribution operated by a US and Israel-backed group called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

More than 200 charities and other NGOs have called for the GHF to be shut down, claiming Israeli forces and armed groups "routinely" open fire on those seeking aid.

The United Nations says more than 2,000 people have been killed around aid sites and convoys in recent months. In August, it said most of the killings were by the Israeli military. Israel denies this.

Israel says the GHF's system provides direct assistance to people who need it, bypassing Hamas interference.

But many people who need assistance are not receiving it.

The latest assessment from the UN-backed global hunger monitor (IPC) is that a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from famine.

Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs called this assessment a "tailor-made fabricated report to fit Hamas's fake campaign". The IPC has issued a response defending its methodology.

Aid agencies, senior UN officials, the UK government and others all say the famine and starvation in Gaza are a result of Israel's actions.

Israel justifies the change of aid system as a necessary part of its effort to defeat Hamas. But even if it is - and that is strongly contested - as the current occupying power, Israel has obligations under international law to civilians in Gaza, including providing adequate access to food.

Netanyahu says that any food shortages are the fault of aid agencies and Hamas. Also, despite the mounting evidence, he has repeatedly denied that starvation is taking place.

Destruction of buildings

Civilian harm caused by the overall operation also includes the damage or destruction of buildings.

In May, Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, declared that "Gaza will be entirely destroyed". That is getting closer.

The latest UN estimate is that up to 42% of buildings in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed and 37% damaged.

Prof Emily Crawford, who teaches international humanitarian law at the University of Sydney Law School, told us the "complete destruction of infrastructure necessary for the survival of the civilian population... is clearly disproportionate".

Destruction is what is being threatened. In August, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz looked ahead to an assault on Gaza City. Posting on social media he demanded that Hamas frees the hostages and disarm: "If they do not agree, Gaza, the capital of Hamas, will become Rafah and Beit Hanoun."

These are both cities that Israel has reduced to ruins.

As well as destroying and damaging buildings during its offensives, BBC Verify analysis suggests Israel has also systematically destroyed buildings in areas it controls.

The IDF said the "destruction of property is only performed when an imperative military necessity is demanded".

To Israel the overall "military necessity" of its operation is not just the severe weakening of Hamas, but its complete defeat.

Former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption wrote in a recent article: "The destruction of Hamas is probably unachievable by any amount of violence, but it is certainly unachievable without a grossly disproportionate effect on human life."

Lord Sumption told us that Israel has concluded there is "no limit to the destruction and casualties that they can inflict, provided that it is necessary to defeat Hamas". He says: "This is plainly incorrect."

Other experts also suggest Israel's own legal assessments have given the government huge leeway in how it can act.

Dr Nimer Sultany believes Israel has "repeatedly invoked wild and highly permissive interpretations of the laws of armed conflict, including the question of proportionality, that defy both common sense and authoritative understandings of international law".

Israel insists it adheres to international law and applies it correctly.

BBC Verify asked Israel's government for the legal advice, or a summary of it, that supports its view that its overall military response to 7 October has been proportionate.

We did not receive a reply.

Assessing individual attacks

As mentioned earlier, the second way international law addresses proportionality concerns individual actions within a conflict.

Is the expected harm to civilians and civilian buildings from a particular action proportionate to the expected military gain that is sought?

In the case of this conflict, Israel's targeting of Hamas members - and the resulting civilian casualties - has been a particular focus.

For instance, on 27 June this year there was a strike near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, aimed at what Israel called "a suspicious individual who posed a threat to IDF troops operating in the northern Gaza Strip".

The IDF told BBC Verify: "The IDF struck a Hamas terrorist. Prior to the strike, steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harming civilians as much as possible."

According to medics and witnesses, at least 11 people, including children, were killed by the strike.

The IDF told the BBC it has comprehensive processes to "ensure implementation with the Law of Armed Conflict". It says senior military commanders are given "target cards" which "facilitate an analysis that is conducted on a strike-by-strike basis, and takes into account the expected military advantage and the likely collateral civilian harm".

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC is a barrister and former prosecutor for the UN. On Israel's calculations around the proportionality of its targeted strikes, he says: "The number of innocent Palestinians killed would seem very hard to justify by the search for an individual Hamas person, however senior that person might be."

The organisation UK Lawyers for Israel has published a "Q&A on International Law of Armed Conflict and Gaza". On the issue of proportionality and individual military strikes, it says "it is impossible to assess this without having the information known to the IDF commanders at the time".

Israel doesn't provide details of its decisions on individual strikes, so this assessment is difficult. However, patterns of individual strikes can inform our understanding of Israel's calculations.

"The burden is now on [Israel] to prove that they were proportionate," argues Sir Geoffrey.

The right to self-defence

Underpinning Israel's campaign is its assertion of the right to self-defence. This is laid out in Article 51 of the UN Charter - the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs".

As we said earlier, the right to self-defence connects to the first way that international law addresses proportionality.

The question being: when the right of self-defence applies, is the overall military response proportionate to the threat being responded to?

Immediately after 7 October, many countries, including the US and the UK, made clear that Israel had the right to defend itself.

In its "Briefing Note on Proportionality in Warfare", UK Lawyers for Israel argues that "Israel is entitled, in self-defence, to enter that territory [Gaza] to dismantle that organisation [Hamas] to prevent it from ever repeating its murderous aim".

Prof Neve Gordon of Queen Mary University, London, is the author of "Israel's Occupation". Recently, he took part in a two-day event which described itself as an inquiry into the UK's role in Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

On the right to self-defence, he says: "I think it is obvious again to anyone with eyes in their head that Hamas carried out a violent attack on 7 October, massacred hundreds of civilians, and I think most states would respond to such an attack."

But he adds that legally this remains complicated.

In fact, several of the experts we spoke to emphasised that, in this instance, Israel's right to self-defence, as detailed in the UN Charter, is contested.

Francesca Albanese is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories (Gaza and the West Bank). She is a fierce critic of Israel's actions and is banned from Israel because of comments about "Israeli oppression" made after 7 October.

Albanese told us that Israel "has completely capsized the current use of principles of distinction, principle of military necessity, precautions, and proportionality in international law".

On self-defence, she points towards the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) advisory opinion in 2004, that Israel could not invoke self-defence against a population it maintains under occupation.

Israel rejects this argument. It claims it was not occupying Gaza before 7 October because it withdrew its troops and settlers in 2005.

However, the UN still regards Gaza as occupied territory because Israel retained control of Gaza's airspace, shoreline and most of its land border. An ICJ advisory opinion last year found that Israel's occupation of Gaza did not end in 2005, and that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful.

Gaza's status before 7 October is relevant to whether the right to self-defence applies, according to Prof Ralph Wilde of University College London. Last year, he represented the states of the Arab League at the International Court of Justice in proceedings relating to Israel and Palestinian territories.

Prof Wilde told us: "Israel's use of force after 7 October was not a new use of force. It was a continuation of that pre-existing use of force, amplifying it to an extreme level. It was, therefore, a continuation of an illegal use of force."

Israel rejects such an argument.

There is a second reason why some believe the right to self-defence doesn't apply to 7 October. Francesca Albanese argues that this right only applies if an attack comes from another state.

Some of the international law experts we spoke to disagree.

Lord Sumption told us such a position is "barely arguable".

Prof Crawford, at the University of Sydney Law School, told us that "since the 9/11 attacks, many states have been prepared to accept that the right to self-defence under international law extends to uses of force against the state by non-state actors". In other words, it does apply to Hamas and 7 October.

This debate is relevant to whether Israel's overall response can be considered a proportionate act of self-defence.

Though Gerry Simpson, Professor of Public International Law at the London School of Economics (LSE), adds: "Even if Israel has a right to self-defence, the exercise of it has been disproportionate."

Prof Kasher, of Tel Aviv University, argues the right to self-defence continues to apply so long as Hamas poses a threat to Israel and its population. "Self-defence is well justified as long as the goal is defence," he says.

Whether it is the goal, though, is contested.

Israel's goals

Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in May that his country's goal was "destroying everything that's left of the Gaza Strip". He also talked of "conquering, cleansing and remaining in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed".

In July, the Israeli defence minister proposed re-settling the entire Palestinian population of Gaza at a camp in the south of the territory, according to Israeli media. The UN had previously warned that the forcible transfer of an occupied territory's civilian population is "tantamount to ethnic cleansing".

The proposed "humanitarian city" was discussed by the Israeli cabinet, but no plans to move forward have been made public.

Israeli statements, proposals and actions are causing some to question whether its goals and its actions go beyond self-defence.

"This is not a war where the goal is defeat," claims Prof Neve Gordon of Queen Mary University. "It is a war where the goal is destruction."

Prof Gerry Simpson from the LSE told us that "the Israeli response looks more like revenge, or the continuation of a long-running erasure of Palestinian identity, than anything one could call 'legitimate self-defence'".

And Prof Janina Dill told us: "If we listen to Israeli security forces and Israeli decision-makers, we must understand that [incapacitating Hamas] is not anymore, or predominantly, the aim Israel is pursuing in Gaza."

Israel rejects any such suggestions.

The IDF told BBC Verify: "The terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip systematically violate international law and deliberately carry out military operations from within the civilian population. The IDF will continue to operate against the terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip whenever and wherever necessary."

A case to answer?

In late 2024, judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, saying there were reasonable grounds to believe he bore "criminal responsibility" for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza war.

It also issued arrest warrants for former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas's then-military chief Mohammed Deif, who Israel says it has now killed.

Netanyahu called the decision antisemitic, and the US later imposed sanctions on four ICC judges, claiming the court was politicised. Further ICC officials and the UN's Francesca Albanese have also now been sanctioned.

A case was also brought to the ICJ by South Africa in 2023, arguing Israel was committing genocide. Israel has dismissed the allegation as baseless. The case is ongoing.

International justice often deals in years and decades, not weeks and months. There are limitations on what it can do during or after a conflict. And the US hostility to Netanyahu's arrest warrant shows Israel has significant support from the world's superpower.

However, in time, the institutions that apply international law can and do draw definitive conclusions. These rulings matter - as do the laws themselves. However imperfect, they are the rules that most countries have agreed should define what they can and can't do. As such, they still count for a lot.

The vast majority of the experts we spoke to believe that all or some aspect of Israel's actions have not been proportionate, in particular with regards to its overall operation. They reach that conclusion for different reasons and with differing degrees of certainty.

Prof O'Connell, of Notre Dame University, told us: "There are rules, and they're not being complied with."

Prof Yuval Shany, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says there is an argument that Israel's actions were initially proportionate but "there seems to have been, however, a point crossed at which Hamas has been weakened to such a degree that the continuation of the military campaign can no longer be seen as proportionate in nature, given its extensive scope, scale and consequences".

And Prof Hovell of LSE told the BBC: "Proportionality in international law is a pretty blunt tool. In many modern conflicts, applying that standard can be difficult. But in Gaza, the case is, sadly, strikingly clear. Israel's campaign has been grossly disproportionate."

Meanwhile, the conflict continues. A much-diminished Hamas is still fighting, still holding hostages and still denying Israel's right to exist.

Israel insists it followed international law throughout this conflict - and that its actions are proportionate. But nearly all of the experts we spoke to aren't convinced.

Additional reporting by Jemimah Herd

More than 300 South Koreans who were detained in a massive immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in the US state of Georgia last week are due to arrive home on Friday.

Their return comes as the country's president and Hyundai's chief executive have warned about the impact of the raid.

A chartered Korean Air jet carrying the workers and 14 non-Koreans who were also detained in the raid took off from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport at midday local time on Thursday (17:00 BST). One South Korean national has reportedly chosen to stay in the US to seek permanent residency.

The plane is expected to arrive at Incheon International Airport some at around 15:30 Seoul time (07:30 BST).

The departure was delayed by more than a day because of an instruction from the White House, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said on Thursday.

President Donald Trump ordered the pause to check whether the workers were willing to remain in the US to continue working and training Americans, according to a South Korean foreign ministry official.

The BBC has contacted the White House for comment.

Lee also said companies would be "very hesitant" about investing in the US following the raid.

"The situation is extremely bewildering," Lee added, while noting it is common practice for Korean firms to send workers to help set up overseas factories.

"If that's no longer allowed, establishing manufacturing facilities in the US will only become more difficult... making companies question whether it's worth doing at all," he added.

Seoul is negotiating with Washington on visa options for South Korean workers "whether that means securing [higher] quotas or creating new visa categories", Lee said.

On Friday, the South Korean foreign ministry said it had called for the US Congress to support a new visa for Korean firms.

During meetings with US senators in Washington this week, Foreign Minister Cho Hyun reiterated concerns among South Koreans over the arrests, the ministry said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Hyundai's chief executive José Muñoz has said the raid will delay the factory's opening.

Mr Muñoz told US media that the raid will create "minimum two to three months delay [in opening the factory] because now all these people want to get back".

Last week, US officials detained 475 people - more than 300 of them South Korean nationals - who they said were working illegally at the battery facility, one of the largest foreign investment projects in Georgia.

LG Energy Solution, which operates the plant with Hyundai, said that many of its employees who were arrested had various types of visas or were under a visa waiver programme.

A worker at the plant spoke to the BBC about the panic and confusion during the raid. The employee said the vast majority of the workers detained were mechanics installing production lines at the site, and were employed by a contractor.

South Korea, a close US ally in Asia, has pledged to invest tens of billions of dollars in America, partly to offset tariffs.

Media in the country have described the raid as a "shock," with the Dong-A Ilbo newspaper warning that it could have "a chilling effect on the activities of our businesses in the United States".

The Yonhap News Agency published an editorial on Thursday urging the two countries to "cooperate to repair cracks in their alliance".

The timing of the raid, as the two governments engage in sensitive trade talks, has raised concern in Seoul.

The White House has defended the operation at the Hyundai plant, dismissing concerns that the raid could deter foreign investment.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump referenced the raid in a social media post and called for foreign companies to hire Americans.

The US government would make it "quickly and legally possible" for foreign firms to bring workers into the country if they respected its immigration laws, Trump said.

Additional reporting by Hosu Lee in Seoul

Charlie Kirk, an influential conservative activist and close ally of US President Donald Trump, was shot dead while speaking at an event at a university in Utah.

There's still a lot that is unclear about the incident but here is what we do know.

What happened?

Kirk, 31, had been invited to Utah Valley University (UVU) and was seated under a white gazebo addressing a crowd of about 3,000 people in the quad - an outdoor bowl courtyard.

According to eyewitnesses and videos taken at the scene, he was responding to a question about gun violence when a single shot rang out around 12:20 local time.

Kirk can be seen recoiling in his chair, blood on his neck, before the terrified crowd starts running.

"I heard a loud shot, a loud bang and then I saw his body actually - in slow motion - kind of fall over," one eyewitness told reporters.

"We all dropped to the ground, and I want to say we sat like that for about 30 to 45 seconds, and then everyone around us got up and started running," said Emma Pitts, a reporter from the Deseret News who was at the scene.

Kirk was rushed to hospital in a private vehicle - his death was confirmed by Trump hours later.

The university campus was evacuated, as authorities hunt for the shooter.

Kirk's wife and two children were on campus at the time, but are safe. No-one else was injured.

Who is the suspect?

Authorities say this was an assassination - but we don't know who shot Kirk, or why.

Two people were arrested in the hours after the incident and later released. They have "no current ties" to the fatal incident, Utah officials have said.

"This shooting is still an active investigation," the Department of Public Safety - which covers law enforcement in the state - said in its latest update.

A large manhunt for the shooter is under way. The BBC's Regan Morris, who is at the campus, said it has been locked down and heavily armed police were going door-to-door.

Law enforcement officials say the killer is believed to have fired the fatal shot from the roof of a building near the courtyard where Kirk was speaking. They have said they are studying CCTV from the university and believe the suspect was "dressed in dark clothing".

BBC Verify has been examining videos posted on social media, which people are claiming may show a "shooter" on the roof of a university building in the aftermath of the attack.

We zoomed in on the image, but the quality is too poor to make out what the dark shape pictured is.

Using features of the building shown, we identified it as UVU's Losee Center – which a campus spokesperson has said is where the shot came from.

The video was posted on X after the shooting. We cannot verify when it was filmed.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

Kirk was one of the most high-profile conservative activists and media personalities in the US and a trusted ally of president Trump. He was a guest at his inauguration and a regular visitor to the White House.

As an 18-year-old in 2012, he co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a student organisation that aims to spread conservative ideals at liberal-leaning US colleges.

He became known for holding open-air debates on campuses across the country, fielding rapid-fire questions in a signature "change-my-mind"-style - just like he was doing on Wednesday at the time he was shot.

His social media and daily podcast often shared clips of him debating people on issues such as gun rights, climate change, faith and family values.

He has, however, attracted criticism for promoting controversial and at times conspiratorial beliefs.

Kirk is considered by others to be a champion of free speech, is credited with playing a key role in convincing younger voters to turn out for Trump in last year's election, and became valued within the administration for his keen understanding of the grassroots Maga movement.

What has the reaction been?

There has been an outpouring of grief and anger from across the political spectrum in the US.

"The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie," Trump said in a statement on Truth Social.

"He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me," the president added, ordering that all flags be flown at half-mast across the country.

All living former US presidents have also offered their condolences. Joe Biden, Trump's predecessor, said there is "no place in our country for this kind of violence", while Barack Obama called the shooting a "despicable act" and said his family was praying for Kirk's loved ones.

Likewise a string of key White House officials have expressed their sorrow - including Health Secretary RFK Jr and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer has also offered his sympathy in a statement. "We must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear."

Italy's Prime Minister Girogia Meloni said the "atrocious murder" was "a deep wound for democracy" while Argentinian President Javier Milei paid tribute to Kirk as "a formidable disseminator of the ideas of freedom and staunch defender of the West".

Is political violence in the US increasing?

In the first six months of this year, the US has experienced about 150 politically-motivated attacks – nearly twice as many as over the same period last year, an expert has told Reuters.

Mike Jensen - from the University of Maryland, which for over 50 years has tracked political violence in a database - said the US is in a "a very, very dangerous spot right now".

"This could absolutely serve as a kind of flashpoint that inspires more of it."

Kirk's murder is the latest in a string of high-profile attacks against political leaders in the US – including two attempted assassinations on Trump during his 2024 election campaign.

The president was injured in ear after he was shot at a rally in Butler, Arizona, last July and authorities say they thwarted a second attempt on his life at his West Palm Beach golf course two months later.

From the Oval Office on Wednesday night, Trump said "radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people".

Comments like these – which he has made regularly – have stirred controversy. Critics say they neglect to acknowledge that the spate of violence is affecting left-leaning politicians too, and could incite further violence against Trump's political opponents.

In June, Minnesota's top Democratic legislator and her husband were murdered in their home.

In April, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro's house was burned in an arson attack, while the Democrat and his family slept inside.

Other incidents this year include politically motivated fire attacks on Tesla dealerships and the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington.

And in 2022, the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was bludgeoned with a hammer after a man broke into the couple's home looking for the top-ranking Democrat with the intention of taking her hostage.

"The horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible," Pelosi said in a post on X on Wednesday.

Former US representative Gabby Giffords – who survived being shot in the head during a meeting with constituents in 2011 – also condemned the attack.

"Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence."

The US political world has been on edge and concerns about security have been rising across the country since conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at a university in Utah.

President Donald Trump's security teams changed the location of his speech to commemorate the 11 September 2001 attack on the US, and are tightening security for a baseball game in New York he plans to attend later on Thursday.

Several universities have been locked down after receiving anonymous threats, and some high-profile figures are boosting their protection, with at least one vowing to carry their own weapons.

Authorities are still searching for the person who shot Kirk, adding to the unease.

President Trump's remarks at the Pentagon, one of the scenes of the major attack 24 years ago, were moved from a more public space to an interior courtyard on Thursday morning "out of an abundance of caution," officials said.

The Secret Service is also exercising caution for the game at Yankee Stadium, and has warned that people in the area "can expect to see increased law enforcement presence".

Those attending the game have been advised to arrive early and budget extra time to get through long queues that are expected to form due to what stadium officials described as "enhanced security measures".

• Follow live updates

As the search for Kirk's killer continued, and people debated possible motivations behind the shooting of the conservative firebrand, both sides of the political spectrum grappled with the potential for violence.

In Washington DC, a bomb threat was made to the Democratic National Committee headquarters, trigging a police search of the building where a pipe bomb was discovered on 6 January 2021.

US Capitol Police have determined that it was not a credible threat.

Separately, New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - a frequent target of Kirk's criticism - cancelled an event in North Carolina.

Her team cited security concerns and said the cancellation was "out of respect for Kirk".

Conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro also withdrew from a previously scheduled event outside Los Angeles.

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who is running for governor in South Carolina, told reporters that she will not hold any public events anytime soon due to security concerns.

She added that she plans to start carrying a firearm whenever legally-permitted.

"I'll start carrying again when I'm back home," she said."In other states, I will have a firearm on my person all the time, and I will have security."

Along with individuals who were nervous about safety, several universities across the South with predominantly black student bodies were forced to lock down after receiving threatening messages.

Some of the historically black colleges and universities - known as HBCUs - have cancelled activities after lifiting their lockdowns.

Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Virginia State University in Chesterfield, Virginia, both had everyone on campus lock into buildings after receiving threats.

Alabama State University in Montgomery, Alabama, cancelled all activities for Thursday and posted on social media that people would be permitted to leave their buildings where they were sheltering once law enforcement cleared them.

Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia, "ceased all non-essential activity effective immediately" for Thursday and Friday due to a "potential threat". Its social media posts did not specify what the threat was, but encouraged remote meetings and for people on campus to "minimise their movement".

US Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the threats were "yet another indication that the explosion of hateful extremism is out of control".

"These attempts to intimidate everyday Americans will not stand. We need leadership at this moment that brings the country together," he said.

The sudden and violent death of the American activist Charlie Kirk, who rallied a youth movement and held celebrity status among his fans, has sparked fierce debate over his political legacy.

The 31-year-old's young supporters appreciated his conservative Christian values and frank opinions. Speaking to the BBC, many were in tears as they remembered a man who listened to them and understood their concerns.

His views were also often polarising and provocative, with his campus events attracting crowds of vocal opponents as well as fans.

Kirk was a strong supporter of gun rights, vehemently opposed abortion, was critical of transgender rights and sceptical about the Covid-19 pandemic. He wasn't shy when it came to expressing his views - and his detractors also didn't hold back.

Encouraging and taking part in fierce, open debates was central to both his professional success and his personal worldview. "When people stop talking, that's when you get violence," Kirk says in a video that has been widely shared since his death.

"When people stop talking," he adds, "that's when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil and they lose their humanity."

Now, both supporters and opponents have been left shaken after he was killed by a single shot on stage while debating at a university in Utah.

"I am sad, distraught," said the left-wing influencer Dean Withers, 21, who is known for posting about political issues and debating conservatives, including Kirk.

In an emotional video posted to his millions of followers, Withers said gun violence "is always disgusting, always vile and always abhorrent".

Many of the tributes referencing gun violence openly pushed back on disturbing comments online which implied Kirk deserved to be shot because of his position on gun rights, which included the view that more people should own weapons and some shooting deaths were inevitable.

Those comments also reflect a broader conversation in the wake of his death. As people paid tribute to Kirk and shared condolences to his wife and children, many also stressed that regardless of the person's viewpoints political violence is never justifiable.

Withers, for example, said he never agreed with Kirk's ideas, but stressed this should never have happened.

"It should come as no shock that I think Charlie Kirk was a bad person - I've made that very clear over the last year," he said. "But does that mean I think he deserves to lose his life? No."

"On campus today, I have had many conversations with people, and everyone agrees it is shocking," Adam Sarr, a student in Cleveland, Ohio, told the BBC.

"Most people I've spoken to don't agree with him politically but we are very disturbed by what happened," he said.

Beyond the immediate shock and the tributes, some have also begun debating Kirk's legacy as one of America's foremost political activists. Many are wrestling with the impact of a man who attracted fervent crowds, bringing young people into politics and conservative Christian thinking, while at the same time shocking many with his provocative opinions.

Kirk spoke of his family - a wife and two children - and was an unapologetic defender of his conservative Christian values.

"He was one of the main people who really helped me to be bold about my Christian faith," influencer Savanna Stone, from Florida, told the BBC.

The 20-year-old, who got married two years ago - is a "tradwife" - a traditional wife, who embraces stereotypical gender roles with her husband, something Kirk believed in.

Stone said she had been nervous to publicly talk about her faith and traditional values.

"Feminism has really hurt the nuclear family and has hurt women," she said, adding that she has been heavily criticised for talking openly about her beliefs.

"Charlie Kirk made me think more critically about feminism," Stone added.

It was in debates that Kirk gained many loyal supporters. They could clearly hear his ideas, and he was surrounded by other young people on all sides of the political landscape - an environment that often produced explosive viral videos of his exchanges and rebuttals.

Sixteen-year-old Ellie, from Brooklyn, New York City, told the BBC that she and her friends used to "get angry" when they saw these clips.

"When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said.

"But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said.

"Everyone I know is horrified by his shooting," the teenager added. "Nobody should be shot for saying their ideas."

• The latest: What do we know about the shooting of Charlie Kirk
• Anthony Zurcher: Killing lays bare America's bloody and broken politics
• From the scene: Witnesses describe moment of Utah shooting
• Profile: The conservative influencer who rallied a youth movement

Julia Pierce, who has been a member of Kirk's organisation, Turning Point USA, for more than 10 years, said Kirk would be remembered for giving young conservatives in America the confidence to be themselves.

"It used to be that for young people it was cool to be a Democrat. But he made it cool to be a Trump supporter and to wear the Maga hat and live your life with traditional family values," she told the BBC.

Activist Chandler Crump, 20, who first met Kirk when he was 14 and has been to every Turning Point national conference since, feels similarly.

"We were young black leaders wearing Maga hats and he said it doesn't matter if you are black or white," Chandler said.

"Political figures tend to speak down to us - but he did not. He paid attention to us. That's why young people listened to him."

Kirk's critical stance on gay and transgender rights was particularly polarising.

He opposed same-sex marriage and argued against gender care for transgender people, often citing his Christian faith on these issues.

"I believe marriage is one man one woman," he wrote in 2019.

"Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone," he said.

But last month, Kirk, who vocally opposed Pride month and celebrations, attracted criticism for writing on X: "It should be legal to burn a rainbow or [Black Lives Matter] flag in public."

Activist Josh Helfgott said Kirk was "the loudest homophobe in America, and his words caused immense harm to LGBTQ+ people".

Referring to one of Kirk's podcast episodes where he called for a ban on gender care, Helfgott said: "This was more than political theatre. It was a dangerous, real-world assault on LGBTQ+ safety and dignity."

Whether they agreed with Kirk or not, the young people the BBC spoke to all said his killing marked a potentially dangerous turning point in freedom of speech and expression.

"Political violence like this affects all of us, it doesn't just affect the people that you disagree with," said Tilly Middlehurst, a University of Cambridge student whose 'gotcha' moment during a debate with Kirk in May went viral.

"This isn't a step in the right direction. This isn't fighting fascism," she said. "This is not what politics should look like."

"It was really bad – we had patients dying on the waiting lists – politicians were getting desperate."

Jesper Fisker, chief executive of the Danish Cancer Society, is looking back 25 years - to the moment Denmark decided to transform its approach to treating cancer.

At that point, he says, the country did not have a strong record.

"It was a disaster," he recalls. "We saw Danish patients out of their own pocket paying for tickets to China to get all sorts of treatments – endangering their health."

Some went to private hospitals in Germany that offered new treatments unavailable in Denmark.

Back then, Denmark's record on cancer was low compared to that of other rich countries. But so was the UK's.

From 1995 to 1999, Denmark's five-year survival rate for rectal cancer was essentially tied with the UK's, on around 48%, according to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a research body. It put both nations well below countries like Australia, which had a 59% rate.

Now, thanks to a bold plan, Denmark's performance on cancer has jumped ahead. By 2014, its five-year survival rate for rectal cancer had risen to 69%, close to Australia's. (The UK's rose too, but only to 62%.)

Analysts think the trend has probably continued (though these are the most up-to-date figures available). And it's a similar story for other cancers, including colon, stomach, and lung.

This Danish success story has caught the attention of UK policymakers. Health Secretary Wes Streeting says that aspects of the Danish model are feeding into government plans.

Some could well be included in a new long-term cancer plan for England, due to be published in the autumn.

So, what's their secret, and can the NHS learn from Denmark?

Big investments and thoughtful touches

Walking today into Herlev Hospital on the outskirts of Copenhagen makes for a rather different experience to arriving at an average NHS hospital.

The foyer is hung with bright, vivid paintings by the Danish artist Poul Gernes. There are 65 in all.

The philosophy is that endless white walls can unnerve patients, while colour can be a pleasant distraction from their problems.

It is a sign of the attention Denmark has paid to even the atmosphere of hospitals - small, thoughtful touches, alongside investment in more traditional equipment.

Dr Michael Andersen, a consultant radiologist and associate professor at the hospital, shows off a high-tech scanner, only the fourth of its kind used by any hospital around the world.

Buying hospital equipment like this - particularly scanners - has been central to Denmark's cancer strategy.

"In 2008 the government made the decision to make a heavy investment into scanner systems," Dr Andersen explains. "They purchased between 30 and 60 - they're an integral part of the way we work."

Particularly important for cancer are CT scanners, which look deep inside a person's body. Denmark now has about 30 of them per million people - the average of other rich countries stands at 25.9.

The UK, meanwhile, lags way behind with just 8.8 scanners per million people, according to the 2021 figures.

The investment in cancer equipment, according to experts, led to a huge expansion in diagnostic capacity in Denmark. Unless funding to meet increasing patient demand is made, they argue, England could continue to lag behind on the quality of care.

This all comes despite the fact that Denmark's health spending hasn't seen a huge boost.

Calculated by spending per head of the population, Denmark is ahead; but as a share of national income, its health spending is similar to, and in fact slightly below that of the UK's.

A bold set of plans

This is just one part of a bold plan drawn up by Danish health leaders. Along with introducing new equipment, and rethinking the atmosphere of hospitals, they also made it possible for patients to be treated with chemotherapy at home.

New national standards govern how quickly Danes must be treated: following a referral, a cancer diagnosis has to be given within two weeks. Then, if treatment is required, it has to start within the two weeks of diagnosis.

If these targets are not met patients have the right to transfer to another hospital - or, failing that, another country - whilst still being funded by the Danish health system.

This is quite a contrast to the UK nations. Here, the target is for patients to start treatment within around nine weeks (officially, 62 days) of an urgent cancer referral.

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, believes that there is a lack of accountability in the English health system specifically, with too many NHS organisations. Addressing this, she says, should improve the quality of cancer care.

"That means clarity over who in the government and NHS is responsible for delivering each part of the plan.

"Ultimately, responsibility for the success or failure of the plan should rest with the health and social care secretary."

She points out that there are similarities between England and Denmark's state-run health systems - for example, the roughly similar amount they spend on health as a share of national income, meaning Denmark's example could be followed in England.

But this would require a long-term plan, political leadership, higher investment, more cancer screening, and stronger targets. Which is no easy feat.

Going beyond just 'treating' cancer

Elisabeth Ketelsen, who is 82, is an active person, still swimming in international events - she has broken world records for her age group. But in 2022, she discovered a lump in her breast.

"I saw the doctor on Monday – on the following Thursday I had mammography and a biopsy and from then on it went so quickly my head was spinning, almost."

Just three weeks after the diagnosis Elisabeth, who is from Denmark, had surgery. Radiotherapy started two weeks later.

Last year, the cancer reappeared in her spine and she was immediately prescribed chemotherapy pills and hormone treatment. The cancer stabilised and she has come off chemotherapy.

She has since returned to the swimming pool, competing at an event in Singapore.

"The system works," she tells me.

Not all Danish patients are as complimentary, of course, but Danish health officials say their targets for rapid cancer diagnosis are being met for about 80% of their patients.

This all comes down to the idea that Danish authorities are not just trying to treat cancer; they're also keen to improve the experience of patients.

Counselling houses, where therapy and companionship are offered to patients, have opened up across the country. These are funded largely by the voluntary sector with a small amount of state funding. (These follow a similar model as the Maggie's cancer support charity in the UK.)

Mette Engel, who runs a counselling centre in Copenhagen, tells me mental health is very important in Denmark's cancer plan.

"We see ourselves as a national part of this support system."

Benefits of chemotherapy at home

Denmark's move to start treating more cancer patients away from hospitals is also part of this wider shift of Danish healthcare from hospitals into communities.

Michael Ziegler, mayor of Høje-Taastrup Municipality near Copenhagen, was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2022. After a stem cell transplant, he was back at work within seven months.

Ziegler had chemotherapy in his own home, using what's known as a chemo pump.

"I could have some quality of life, being able to do things at home I wanted to do instead of being stuck in a hospital room," he says.

"I also think at hospitals there is always at risk of getting infections. The chemo has the effect of reducing my immune system to a very low level so I am vulnerable to infections."

There haven't yet been any major studies and so hard data is limited, but it's thought by some that at-home chemo could potentially boost survival chances by lowering the risk of a patient catching an infection while in hospital.

His cancer has since returned and he will be restarting treatment, including more chemotherapy and a new stem cell transplant.

He says he is "feeling optimistic".

A blueprint for the NHS?

The Danish health system has certain parallels with the NHS - not least as both are mainly funded by taxpayers.

The two nations also face similar challenges when considering the overall health of the population. Alcohol consumption is similar in both nations, though obesity levels in Denmark are lower and smoking rates are higher. (One Danish health leader told me that they were envious of UK initiatives on smoking, with the minimum age for tobacco sales rising each year.)

However, there are certain challenges specific to the UK: the population of England, for example, is nearly 10 times larger than Denmark's population. And the NHS is a complex organisation.

Still, ministers have made no secret of their interest in the Danish system, with an official visit earlier this year.

Wes Streeting, the UK Health Secretary, says: "Denmark's healthcare system is known the world over for its excellence, having transformed outcomes through its cancer plans, and Health Minister Karin Smyth's trip to the country earlier this year offered us vital insights up close."

Mr Streeting says these insights have "fed into" government health plans to "speed up cancer diagnoses and deliver cutting edge treatments to the NHS front line quicker".

Michelle Mitchell of Cancer Research UK agrees that Denmark offers a useful template. "They are diagnosing cancer earlier, people are surviving longer, more people are taking up screening – all of those factors as well as investment in workforce and kit are critical components of a cancer plan."

She argues that British health ministers could move towards Danish-style national waiting time targets rather than the UK's current system of "benchmarks", which are weaker and haven't been met since 2015.

'This is unfinished business'

The greater challenge for the NHS though, is that there are so many other problems - crowded A&E departments, overstretched staff and, as one analyst put it, "multiple fires burning" - meaning that it can be difficult to persuade health leaders to focus on cancer survival.

Ruth Thorlby, assistant director of policy at The Health Foundation think tank, says that policymakers in London and Copenhagen both realised at the same time, in the 1990s, that cancer needed urgent attention and urgent plans were drawn up.

But whilst Danish policymakers saw policies through, she argues that in the UK the momentum "dissipated", as other priorities and short-term problems emerged.

"This is unfinished business - over the last decade there has been a move away from cancer plans," she says.

At the heart of Denmark's success was a sense of political consensus. From the 1990s onwards, figures from all major parties agreed that cancer should be a priority. This is a level of agreement the UK has not managed to reach, she says.

Mr Fisker of the Danish Cancer Society argues that the usual cut-and-thrust of party politics needs to be set aside. "Politicians must promise each other there is going to be a long, lasting partnership. And health leaders need to operate on a 10-, 15-, 20-year basis," he says - longer than the life of any one government or party.

But does he think that's possible in the UK? After all, Westminster is not known for much long-term, cross-party thinking.

"If you are really decisive, if you really want to do this and are committed to it over a period of time, and you are also ready to invest then I think it can be done," he says.

With a pause, he adds: "Nothing comes without investment."

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.

If mealtimes with your child sometimes feel more like negotiations than nourishment, you aren't alone. According to the NHS, more than half of children will show fussy eating habits at some point.

Charlotte Stirling-Reed, a child and baby nutritionist, spoke to the CBeebies Parental Helpline about the best ways to manage it and said it's important not to blame yourself.

"It's a really normal part of many children's development. There are so many families out there dealing with this.

"Don't feel like it's just you because it isn't."

1. Let them choose

Whilst seemingly counterintuitive, Charlotte says allowing a child to pick what they want to eat can actually encourage them to try more things.

"If your little one says, 'I don't want to eat this food,' then saying to them, 'that's okay,' is a much more helpful stance."

As the child grows, they need to make their own decisions, so not suppressing this can help.

"Kids want autonomy, and us saying to them, 'you don't have to eat it' can often permit them to decide eating it is their choice."

She also suggests allowing them to leave the table when they want, saying prolonging mealtimes will only make the situation worse.

2. Don't label food as good and bad

Labelling different foods as good or bad can ultimately impact a child's relationship with what they are eating, says Charlotte.

"Try and be neutral. Avoid 'if you eat that, you'll get a reward or punishment'. Any of that can have a really negative effect on children."

Instead, Charlotte encourages parents to teach children about balance.

"We don't need to shame different foods, but we might eat some foods less frequently than others.

"I wouldn't have the conversation about what's healthier or what's not. I'd model it, I'd show them what moderation and variety and balance looks like."

3. Make enjoyment the priority

Making meals a more enjoyable experience away from the food itself can take attention away from the problem and encourage them to eat, says Charlotte.

This also helps shift the association of the table as a place where they don't want to be.

"Get a book out, anything you can do to make them want to be at the table. Then you could always say 'we're going to put that book away now and we're going to have our food'.

"But try not to focus on the food. Try and make the dinner table time fun, chat to them a lot."

4. Be mindful of appetite

As a child reaches the age of one, their growth can begin to slow, which can cause an appetite dip.

"There are peaks and troughs. Just like we don't always have the same appetite every day, it's the same for our kids."

She says being mindful of this is important.

"It's called responsive feeding, letting them dictate how much they eat. So we set a structure, like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We offer it at that time and we choose what foods, but we should try and let them decide how much."

If your child is active and growing, then they're probably getting enough food. However, if you're concerned about your child's limited diet or you think they may have other sensory issues, then it's always worth discussing it with your GP.

5. Get them involved

Including your child as much as possible in food prep and meals can help them become more adventurous.

Charlotte says simple activities such as helping lay the table, stirring or spreading mixtures, doing the shopping together or even reading about food can all help.

She also advises exposing them to a wide range of foods.

"Children like familiarity. So the more they become familiar with all these foods, the more likely they are to accept them."

This doesn't have to take a lot of time. Charlotte recommends using food items that are quick to use and nutrient-heavy.

"Things like ground nuts, ground seeds, a handful of frozen fruit or vegetables.

"And also products that you can make a very quick meal out of, such as mixing tinned tomatoes, lentils and frozen veggies, and voila, you've got a really healthy, nutrient-dense pasta sauce."

For more advice on fussy eating see the NHS guide.

Schools are "picking up the pieces" as more children start reception without key skills such as speaking in full sentences or using the toilet independently, teaching unions have told the BBC.

A third of teachers have at least five children in their school's reception class who need help with going to the toilet, a survey of more than 1,000 primary school teachers in England suggests.

Nine in 10 who responded to the Teacher Tapp survey had seen a decrease in speech and language abilities among new starters over the past two years.

The government previously announced a target for 75% of children to be at a good level of development on leaving reception by 2028.

At St Mary's Church of England Primary School in Stoke, speech and language therapist Liz Parkes is helping reception pupil Gracie sound out words that rhyme.

Liz comes to the school once a week to do one-to-one interventions like this, and to offer training and support to teachers on how to spot issues.

Around a quarter of pupils at St Mary's need some extra support with speech and language when they join reception, but with Liz's help that number is down to just a handful of pupils by Year 2.

Liz says social isolation is partly the reason for the decrease in communication skills.

"Children are increasingly spending a lot of time looking at a screen and not necessarily engaged in more meaningful interactions or developing the kind of listening skills you need when you hit nursery and reception.

"We're seeing children in reception who haven't experienced having conversations on a regular basis or aren't having a range of experiences where they're exposed to language."

Teacher Tapp, a survey tool, asked primary school teachers in England about school readiness a week into term. In results seen exclusively by BBC News, they found:

• 85% of 1,132 respondents said they had at least one reception pupil who needed help going to the toilet
• 33% have at least five children needing help, while 8% had at least 10
• 92% reported a decrease in speech and language abilities among reception starters over the past two years.

A Department for Education spokesperson said that the government was working to ensure that a record share of children are "school-ready" at the age of five, "turning the tide on inherited challenges of lack of access to high-quality early education, and helping teachers focus on teaching so every child in the class can achieve and thrive".

The spokesperson added that the government had already increased access to early years care for hundreds of thousands of families and was investing £1.5bn to "rebuild early years services".

Catherine Miah, deputy head at St Mary's Church of England Primary School in Stoke, encouraged schools to budget for a speech and language therapist, who could have an "incredible" impact on children.

"We've had to make sacrifices elsewhere, but if children aren't ready to learn you could sit them in front of the best phonics lessons in the world, they're not going to take it onboard if they've not got those learning behaviours."

The school says a third of its pupils need help with toilet training when they join nursery, but the school works with parents to ensure they are toilet-trained by the time they reach reception.

"We're a team. It's not a case of saying to parents 'This is your job. Why haven't you done it?' We need to work together."

The government has set a target that 75% of children leaving reception at five years old will have a "good level of development" by 2028. Last year 68% of children were at that level, so an extra 45,000 children a year are needed to reach that goal.

To achieve a "good" level of development, a child is assessed by teachers at the end of their reception year on tasks including dressing, going to the toilet, and paying attention in class.

Pepe Di'Iasio, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said reception teachers were "brilliant" at supporting young children but local services have been badly eroded over the past decade.

"It has left schools picking up the pieces," he said. "Many children are starting school already several months behind their peers."

Parenting charity Kindred Squared found that teachers are spending 2.5 hours a day helping children who haven't hit developmental milestones instead of teaching.

They have written a set of guidelines for parents to check whether their child has the skills they need to begin school.

The Department for Education was approached for comment.

Diane's son has just started Year 1 at St Mary's in Stoke this year. She says without the school's support he would have been much further behind in his development.

"Within two weeks he was out of nappies," said Diane. "They would help him on the toilet here and I'd do it at home, we'd work together."

Teachers say her boy is thriving, but Diane says the school has been instrumental in supporting his special educational needs and improving his speech and language.

"He does a lot for himself, whereas before he was always dependent on me. School have helped me to help him become more independent and more confident," she said.

Additional reporting by Emily Doughty

Minutes into his trial, Ryan Routh, the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump, got cut off by the judge for veering off topic.

"Modern trials seem to eliminate all that is human," Routh, who is defending himself, told jurors as he began his opening remarks on Thursday.

He opened with a "history" of human existence, but was cut off within minutes by Judge Aileen Cannon who excused the jury and told Routh he had to restrict his comments to the case.

Routh agreed and apologized, but the judge again cut him off when he resumed, instructing Routh that his opening remarks were over.

For the prosecution, attorney John Shipley Jr said in his opening that by trying to assassinate Trump in the midst of the 2024 election, Routh "decided to take the choice away from the American people,"

Cellphone data, security footage, a handwritten note by Routh stating an intention to kill Trump, plus eyewitness testimony would prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr Shipley said.

The US Secret Service agent, who testified that he discovered a man hiding on the perimeter of Trump's West Palm Beach golf course, was the first government witness to take the stand.

In court, Robert Fercano identified the man he discovered last year through a shrub-covered fence as Routh, who sat alone watching from the defense table wearing a gray blazer and blue tie.

Mr Fercano testified that while patrolling the area near the sixth hole of the golf course, he saw a face, armored plates, and what appeared to be the muzzle of an AK-style weapon poking through the fence.

After calling, "Hey, sir," Mr Fercano realized a weapon was pointed at him, and called for backup while moving away.

Jurors heard audio of Mr Fercano radioing colleagues after he discharged his weapon in Routh's direction: "Shots fired! Shots fired! Shots fired!"

At prosecutors' request, the agent stood before the jury holding the SKS semiautomatic rifle they allege Routh obtained illegally and used in the assassination attempt.

Then Routh began questioning him - almost exactly a year after Mr Fercano said he came face to face with him at Trump's golf club.

"I do know you pointed the weapon at my face," Mr Fercano told Mr Routh in response to questions about the positioning of the weapon.

Routh is charged with five crimes, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate as well as firearms charges, among others. He has pleaded not guilty.

The jury has 7 women and 5 men, seated on Wednesday after three days of selection. There are 4 alternates (2 women and 2 men).

Routh tried to dismiss prospective jurors with law enforcement ties, citing bias but the judge said his reasons were not valid for dismissal.

CBS, the BBC's news partner, contributed to this report.

The former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has been sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison after being found guilty of plotting a military coup.

A panel of five Supreme Court justices handed down the sentence just hours after they had convicted the former leader.

They ruled he was guilty of leading a conspiracy aimed at keeping him in power after he lost the 2022 election to his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Four of the justices found him guilty while one voted to acquit him.

Bolsonaro, who is under house arrest, did not attend the trial but has in the past called it a "witch hunt".

His words have previously been echoed by US President, Donald Trump, who imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods, framing them as retaliation for Bolsonaro's prosecution.

Reacting to the guilty verdict, Trump said he found it "very surprising" and compared it to his own experience: "That's very much like they tried to do with me. But they didn't get away with it at all."

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Brazil's Supreme Court had "unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro" and threatened to "respond accordingly to this witch hunt".

Bolsonaro, who is 70, now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

His lawyers are expected to argue that he should be kept under house arrest instead of being sent to jail.

Michelle and John Wylie had a blissful November wedding four years ago at a boutique hotel on the South Ayrshire coast, surrounded by friends, loved ones – and one complete stranger.

The couple noticed the mystery wedding crasher only when they received photos of their big day – a tall man in a dark suit, with a noticeable look of puzzlement on his face.

They quizzed relatives, friends and staff at the venue, even asking the wedding photographer about the guest. No-one could provide any answers.

But now, after an internet sleuth joined the search, the mystery man has finally been identified.

Andrew Hillhouse, who was supposed to be a guest at another wedding two miles away, told BBC Scotland News he only realised he was at the wrong venue when the bride walked down the aisle.

Michelle and John were married on 20 November 2021 at the Carlton Hotel in Prestwick, surrounded by family and friends - or so they thought.

"It wasn't until I got the first few photos back from the photographer and me and my husband were looking at them that we went 'who's that?'," recalls Michelle, who lives in Kilmarnock.

"We started asking our parents first of all, then going through my aunties and the rest of the family, then my friends. Absolutely no-one knew who he was.

"Then we got on to the Carlton Hotel if they had an idea, but nope. We wondered if this was someone who had been helping bring the register down, but not a single person knew who he was."

A Facebook post by the bride did not provide any answers either, and as time passed trying to solve the mystery fell by the wayside.

However Michelle told the BBC it kept niggling away at the back of her mind.

"It would come into my head and I'd be like 'someone must know who this guy is'. I said a few times to my husband 'are you sure you don't know this guy, is he maybe from your work?'

"We wondered if he was a mad stalker."

Other theories included a new partner of the daughter of family friends or someone helping wedding photographer Steven Withers.

Then an appeal to content creator Dazza, asking him to share their pictures and attempt to track the wedding crasher down, finally revealed the man's identity.

On that same Saturday in November 2021 Andrew Hillhouse was running late for a wedding. With five minutes to spare, he pulled up at the venue he'd been told to go to, hurried in, and took his seat.

His partner David was to be among the bridal party, and Andrew was relieved to be there on time.

It was when the bridal party began walking down the aisle that a sinking feeling crept in.

"I assumed David was in another room with the bride so the music starts up, everyone turns around to look at the bride and the second I see her I'm like 'oh no, that's not Michaela, what's going on here?'," he says.

"But I was committed at that point, because you can't walk out of a wedding in progress so I thought I better double down. I'm 6ft 2in and I'm taller than everyone else, so I was trying to hunch down a bit and get out the way.

"I was just sitting there thinking 'please, let this be over with'."

Andrew's partner had given him completely the wrong venue - the wedding he was supposed to be attending was taking place at the Great Western Hotel in Ayr.

He only knew his partner and the bride to be, which is why he didn't raise any eyebrows at not recognising anyone else in attendance.

"There was a piper playing outside, and all these well dressed people, so I thought I was in the right place."

Once the ceremony ended, Andrew, who is from Troon, headed for the exit to phone David, only to find he couldn't escape just yet.

"I make a beeline for the doors, and hear 'can we get everyone together for a picture' and I was just going 'noooo' inside.

"So you can see my big head in the back row, trying to get out the way."

Andrew was finally able to get out, though he admittedly took a drink of cola on the way. He phoned his partner to ask where they were, and it was only then he realised how far away he'd been sent.

"He told me they were taking photos at the fountain, and I'm looking around going 'where is this fountain?' Eventually I asked where they were and he tells me they're at the hotel in Ayr."

He was then able to go the actual wedding he was planning to attend, where his mishap provided a fun tale for the other guests.

Finally a friend sent him the social media appeal, and he was able to explain online why he was there four years ago.

Andrew's explanation for his unintentional gate-crashing on Dazza's social media post garnered more than 600 comments and over 29,000 likes.

It has also put him in touch with the bride Michelle - the pair are now Facebook friends and have since met in person to share a laugh about their unlikely connection.

"I could not stop laughing," says Michelle.

"We can't believe we've found out who he is after almost four years."

"Michelle said I'd been haunting her for years," Andrew adds.

"It was much easier to crash a wedding than I'd have thought – I was in and out like an assassin, even if I only got a bottle of cola for it all!"

Southern Water has warned tanker companies to stop delivering its water to the Wiltshire estate of an American billionaire.

Some of it was recently used, entirely legally, to help fill a lake, despite a hosepipe ban being in place locally for domestic users.

Multiple water tankers have been filmed both day and night by local residents filling up from standpipes in part of neighbouring Hampshire where a drought order is in place.

The BBC has been told that those tankers went to Conholt Park, a 2,500 acre estate owned by Stephen Schwarzman – who is one of the world's richest men and a financial backer of US President Donald Trump.

A spokesperson for Mr Schwarzman confirmed that a small proportion of the water transported had very recently been used to help fill a new lake but said the water has been "sourced through licenced providers responsible for the lawful and proper extraction and delivery". They said an advanced irrigation system was how the lake would mainly be filled.

Despite the ongoing drought, the tankers are legally allowed to take the water in Hampshire under licence because construction work is not domestic and therefore not covered by current drought restrictions.

However, Tim McMahon, Southern Water's managing director, said he was "appalled by this use of water" and that the company had imposed on immediate ban on tankers extracting from the standpipes.

Southern Water said it did not know exactly how much water had been taken but that there had been a spike in the last week with "significant" amounts taken but with other users also making use of the standpipes it was impossible to say who had taken more.

The water firm, which serves more then two million customers, said it was first alerted by residents in Andover who had spotted the tankers coming and going from the standpipes.

Among them was Laurence Leask, an air conditioning inspector who told the BBC that he has been waking up at 03:00 BST to follow the tankers from the standpipes in Andover to the estate eight miles away, just over the border in Wiltshire, which is not subject to a drought order at present.

"We think there have been over 30 tankers a day, seven days a week," he said.

"That's a lot of water. I worked out that 30 tankers means a million litres a day, something like that."

He said it had been going on for the past few months, prompting him to co-ordinate a network of neighbours who took it in turns to film and follow the tankers.

One of those, Trevor Marshall, said: "We think they might be using the water to fill the lake. He makes notes of the tankers passing his kitchen window and sends them to Laurence.

"At the same time we're on a hosepipe ban - it's incredibly outrageous."

Mr Schwarzman is one of the world's richest men, with an estimated worth of more than £30bn, having founded Blackstone, one of the biggest investment funds in the world.

He has been renovating the 2,500 acre, 17th century shooting estate since he bought it in 2022 for an estimated £80m.

That involves an extensive redevelopment and constructing a new lake.

A statement from Blackstone said: "The suggestion that the new owners of Conholt Park violated water regulations is false and misleading.

"They have taken extraordinary care to ensure the restoration of the property complies with all local laws and regulations. Most recently, as construction winds down (expected to be completed very soon) a proportion of transported water has been used in connection with irrigation and the lake.

"The water has been sourced through licenced providers responsible for the lawful and proper extraction and delivery. Water has been sourced from multiple locations, largely outside the region. Any suggestion that the owners violated local water regulations would be false and misleading."

Southern Water said it would be "having robust conversations with those using this water and the companies working on their behalf".

Managing director Tim McMahon said: "While this disappointing occurrence is highly unusual and rare, I would like to reassure customers that I am leading a thorough review into how this happened, and how we can tighten up both our internal monitoring processes and any legal loopholes so that this cannot happen again."

Shares in Warner Brothers Discovery and Paramount Skydance have surged following reports that Paramount Skydance is preparing an offer to buy the rival studio.

The reported bid would be for the entire Warner Brothers Discovery business, which includes news network CNN, HBO, and the film studio behind Barbie and Harry Potter.

The deal would mark further consolidation in the US media industry, which has been dramatically reshaped by the rise of streaming, and comes as US media firms face scrutiny from US President Donald Trump's administration.

Warner Brothers Discovery declined to comment. Paramount Skydance did not respond to a request for comment.

The potential offer from Paramount Skydance was first reported in the Wall Street Journal.

The firm is led by David Ellison, whose father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, briefly became the world's richest man this week.

It comes just weeks after the completion of Paramount Skydance's own $8bn (£5.89bn) merger, in which David Ellison's independent movie studio Skydance purchased Paramount, home of the CBS news network and hits such as Yellowstone.

Mr Ellison is also reportedly closing in on a plan to by The Free Press, a digital media outlet co-founded by Bari Weiss.

Warner Brothers Discovery shares closed up 29% on Thursday while Paramount Skydance closed up 16%.

The Wall Street Journal reported that a bid had not been submitted and the plan could fall apart.

David Ellison has been in the film business since dropping out of University of Southern California roughly two decades ago, eventually earning his own reputation in Hollywood as a producer on films such as Top Gun Maverick and World War Z.

His father, an ally of President Donald Trump, this week briefly overtook Elon Musk as the world's richest person, worth some $380bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires index.

The Paramount takeover plunged his son into politics as well.

The deal faced a lengthy approval process due to a row over President Donald Trump's legal battle with CBS over a Kamala Harris interview he alleged had been edited to favour the Democratic Party.

Paramount eventually agreed to pay $16m to settle the dispute. The money will go to a future presidential library.

The settlement did not include a statement of apology or regret.

Democrats have called the payment a "bribe" - an accusation that Paramount has denied - and demanded documents about the negotiations from the firm.

Warner Brothers Discovery is the product of a 2022 merger. Since the deal, it has struggled with debt and has made significant job cuts.

The company said earlier this year it planned to split the business, dividing its streaming brands from its more traditional cable television business.

The former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has been convicted of plotting a military coup.

Three out of five Supreme Court justices found the 70-year-old guilty of leading a conspiracy aimed at keeping him in power after he lost the 2022 election to his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

While the plot failed to enlist enough support from the military to go ahead, it did culminate in the storming of government buildings by Bolsonaro's supporters on 8 January 2023, the justices found.

One justice acquitted Bolsonaro and a final one is yet to vote, but the simple majority is enough to convict the former president, who could now face decades in jail. He will be sentenced on Friday.

The former president's fate was sealed on Thursday when Justice Carmén Lúcia cast her vote.

She found him guilty on all the five charges: attempting to stage a coup, leading an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, and two more charges related to the damage of property during the storming of buildings in Brasília on 8 January 2023.

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.

The US political world has been on edge and concerns about security have been rising across the country since conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at a university in Utah.

President Donald Trump's security teams changed the location of his speech to commemorate the 11 September 2001 attack on the US, and are tightening security for a baseball game in New York he plans to attend later on Thursday.

Several universities have been locked down after receiving anonymous threats, and some high-profile figures are boosting their protection, with at least one vowing to carry their own weapons.

Authorities are still searching for the person who shot Kirk, adding to the unease.

President Trump's remarks at the Pentagon, one of the scenes of the major attack 24 years ago, were moved from a more public space to an interior courtyard on Thursday morning "out of an abundance of caution," officials said.

The Secret Service is also exercising caution for the game at Yankee Stadium, and has warned that people in the area "can expect to see increased law enforcement presence".

Those attending the game have been advised to arrive early and budget extra time to get through long queues that are expected to form due to what stadium officials described as "enhanced security measures".

• Follow live updates

As the search for Kirk's killer continued, and people debated possible motivations behind the shooting of the conservative firebrand, both sides of the political spectrum grappled with the potential for violence.

In Washington DC, a bomb threat was made to the Democratic National Committee headquarters, trigging a police search of the building where a pipe bomb was discovered on 6 January 2021.

US Capitol Police have determined that it was not a credible threat.

Separately, New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - a frequent target of Kirk's criticism - cancelled an event in North Carolina.

Her team cited security concerns and said the cancellation was "out of respect for Kirk".

Conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro also withdrew from a previously scheduled event outside Los Angeles.

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who is running for governor in South Carolina, told reporters that she will not hold any public events anytime soon due to security concerns.

She added that she plans to start carrying a firearm whenever legally-permitted.

"I'll start carrying again when I'm back home," she said."In other states, I will have a firearm on my person all the time, and I will have security."

Along with individuals who were nervous about safety, several universities across the South with predominantly black student bodies were forced to lock down after receiving threatening messages.

Some of the historically black colleges and universities - known as HBCUs - have cancelled activities after lifiting their lockdowns.

Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Virginia State University in Chesterfield, Virginia, both had everyone on campus lock into buildings after receiving threats.

Alabama State University in Montgomery, Alabama, cancelled all activities for Thursday and posted on social media that people would be permitted to leave their buildings where they were sheltering once law enforcement cleared them.

Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia, "ceased all non-essential activity effective immediately" for Thursday and Friday due to a "potential threat". Its social media posts did not specify what the threat was, but encouraged remote meetings and for people on campus to "minimise their movement".

US Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the threats were "yet another indication that the explosion of hateful extremism is out of control".

"These attempts to intimidate everyday Americans will not stand. We need leadership at this moment that brings the country together," he said.

The former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has been convicted of plotting a military coup.

Three out of five Supreme Court justices found the 70-year-old guilty of leading a conspiracy aimed at keeping him in power after he lost the 2022 election to his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

While the plot failed to enlist enough support from the military to go ahead, it did culminate in the storming of government buildings by Bolsonaro's supporters on 8 January 2023, the justices found.

One justice acquitted Bolsonaro and a final one is yet to vote, but the simple majority is enough to convict the former president, who could now face decades in jail. He will be sentenced on Friday.

The former president's fate was sealed on Thursday when Justice Carmén Lúcia cast her vote.

She found him guilty on all the five charges: attempting to stage a coup, leading an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, and two more charges related to the damage of property during the storming of buildings in Brasília on 8 January 2023.

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.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and former Commons leader Lucy Powell look set for a showdown for Labour's deputy leadership, after the only other remaining candidate failed to get enough support.

Left-wing backbencher Bell Riberio-Addy said she had not secured the 80 MP nominations needed by 17:00 on Thursday to progress.

Phillipson had already got enough supporters a day before the deadline, while Powell was just three short by Wednesday evening.

In the next stage, the contenders have to win the backing of 5% of local parties or three Labour-affiliated groups, such as a trade union, to go through to a ballot of members.

Posting on social media after nominations closed, Ribeiro-Addy said: "Unfortunately, I have not secured the high number of nominations required to proceed in the deputy leadership contest.

"I am disappointed that the full range of Labour members' views will not be represented on the ballot paper."

The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner, after she failed to pay enough tax on her £800,000 flat in Hove.

The winner will not become deputy prime minister, as Rayner was, because that position has been handed to Justice Secretary David Lammy.

But the position of deputy leader is a potentially powerful one, as a link between the Labour membership and the party leadership - and whoever wins will be at the forefront of Labour election campaigns.

Crucially, they cannot be sacked by the party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, as they will have their own mandate.

Voting for the next deputy leader is likely to open for Labour members on 8 October and close on 23 October, with the winner being announced two days later.

The remaining candidates will have an opportunity to woo Labour members at hustings during the party's conference in Liverpool at the end of September.

The contest opens up chances for unhappy MPs and party members to express their discontent with the leadership, potentially overshadowing the big ministerial speeches.

Phillipson - the only cabinet member left in the race - emerged as the early frontrunner after attracting support from MPs who are loyal to the government.

But party members may prefer a candidate who is prepared to challenge Sir Keir, potentially harming Phillipson's chances.

Powell - who was recently sacked from her cabinet role in a ministerial reshuffle - may attract the support of Labour MPs dissatisfied with the performance of Sir Keir's government and its policies.

Many senior Labour figures have said the next leader should be a woman and from outside London to counter what they see as the London-centric and male-dominated party leadership.

Lord Mandelson has been sacked as the UK's ambassador to the US, following fresh revelations about his links to the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The Foreign Office said the move followed the emergence of emails showing "the depth and extent" of the pair's relationship was "materially different from that known at the time of his appointment".

The PM was under mounting pressure to dismiss his ambassador, following the publication of messages he exchanged with Epstein in 2008, while the financier was facing charges for soliciting sex with a minor.

On Wednesday Lord Mandelson said he "foolishly" relied on assurances of Epstein's innocence, "which I regret to this day".

In a statement the Foreign Office said: "In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

"The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.

"In particular Peter Mandelson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein's crimes he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect."

Lord Mandelson has been in and out of British politics for four decades and was instrumental in the New Labour project which saw Tony Blair win the 1997 election with a huge landslide.

He was a minister in different departments in the government until 2010, when Labour lost power and during that time earned a reputation for bouncing back after twice being forced to resign his ministerial positions.

He had generally been seen as doing a good job as ambassador to the US, not least because of his ability to work with the Trump administration.

However, questions over his past friendship with Epstein have dogged him since his appointment.

The current attrition rate of senior figures from the government is running at one a week this autumn.

First Angela Rayner resigns as deputy prime minister, knowing she would be sacked if she didn't.

Next Lord Mandelson is sacked as the UK's Ambassador in the United States.

Each followed a similar pattern.

A drip drip of revelations, the prime minister expressing full confidence in them while not in possession of the full facts about them, and then, after a growing sense of inevitability, they're gone.

In the hours before Lord Mandelson's sacking, even those in government and outwardly loyal to the prime minister's position at the time, were struggling.

Mike Tapp, a home office minister appointed just last week, told Radio 4's Today Programme the emails made him "shudder".

"It leaves a bad taste in the mouth," he added.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he was "completely disgusted" by what he had heard.

Then, just before 11am, as foreign office minister Stephen Doughty stood up in the Commons to answer an urgent question on Mandelson, my emails pinged - and Lord Mandelson was a goner.

The Foreign Office statement pointed to "the depth and extent" of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein, which Downing Street insist they had nott realised until now and what they described as Mandelson's view "that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged".

The BBC understands Mandelson disputes the suggestion that he thought Epstein's conviction was "wrongful".

Rather, he privately supported his friend, believed was telling the truth and thought the length of his sentence should be challenged.

In an email obtained by The Sun, Mandelson is reported to have told Epstein to "fight for early release".

This is the third time Lord Mandelson has lost a high profile government job in a career spanning four decades.

He resigned as trade and industry secretary in 1998 after a row about borrowing a third of a million pounds from a ministerial colleague.

In 2001, he resigned as Northern Ireland Secretary after a row about a passport application from an Indian billionaire.

For Sir Keir Starmer, there are now questions about whether he should have been more curious all along about his now former ambassador's friendship with Epstein.

And he and the Foreign Office begin the hunt for a new ambassador.

There would be a logic in re-appointing Dame Karen Pierce, the previous ambassador who had built relationships with President Trump's team, given she was there until February and could pick up where she left off.

The other names I hear are being talked about are Richard Moore, the outgoing head of MI6 and Lord Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary.

Some see a merit in making an appointment quickly given the turbulence of the last few days and the imminence of next week's State visit by President Trump.

Oh and one final thought.

I just bumped into a senior Westminster figure who pondered a once hypothetical which never happened.

Just imagine if the prime minister had appointed Nigel Farage as the UK's Ambassador in Washington, as was talked up by some (including Farage himself).

Extraordinary as it would have been, it would have avoided this row, and put the man who has become Sir Keir Starmer's biggest threat out of political harms way.

How different our political debate and the fortunes of some of its biggest parties might have been.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and former Commons leader Lucy Powell look set for a showdown for Labour's deputy leadership, after the only other remaining candidate failed to get enough support.

Left-wing backbencher Bell Riberio-Addy said she had not secured the 80 MP nominations needed by 17:00 on Thursday to progress.

Phillipson had already got enough supporters a day before the deadline, while Powell was just three short by Wednesday evening.

In the next stage, the contenders have to win the backing of 5% of local parties or three Labour-affiliated groups, such as a trade union, to go through to a ballot of members.

Posting on social media after nominations closed, Ribeiro-Addy said: "Unfortunately, I have not secured the high number of nominations required to proceed in the deputy leadership contest.

"I am disappointed that the full range of Labour members' views will not be represented on the ballot paper."

The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner, after she failed to pay enough tax on her £800,000 flat in Hove.

The winner will not become deputy prime minister, as Rayner was, because that position has been handed to Justice Secretary David Lammy.

But the position of deputy leader is a potentially powerful one, as a link between the Labour membership and the party leadership - and whoever wins will be at the forefront of Labour election campaigns.

Crucially, they cannot be sacked by the party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, as they will have their own mandate.

Voting for the next deputy leader is likely to open for Labour members on 8 October and close on 23 October, with the winner being announced two days later.

The remaining candidates will have an opportunity to woo Labour members at hustings during the party's conference in Liverpool at the end of September.

The contest opens up chances for unhappy MPs and party members to express their discontent with the leadership, potentially overshadowing the big ministerial speeches.

Phillipson - the only cabinet member left in the race - emerged as the early frontrunner after attracting support from MPs who are loyal to the government.

But party members may prefer a candidate who is prepared to challenge Sir Keir, potentially harming Phillipson's chances.

Powell - who was recently sacked from her cabinet role in a ministerial reshuffle - may attract the support of Labour MPs dissatisfied with the performance of Sir Keir's government and its policies.

Many senior Labour figures have said the next leader should be a woman and from outside London to counter what they see as the London-centric and male-dominated party leadership.

Will this be Storm Amy?

Change in weather patterns

Police are investigating a fire at the office of Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, her spokesperson has said.

A blaze broke out at the Washington and Gateshead South MP's constituency office in Concord, Washington, in the early hours, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service (TWFRS) said.

Pictures of the office show the building damaged by flames.

The spokesperson for Hodgson said she "will not be deterred and will continue to support her constituents".

Images also show graffiti on the side of the building which reads "328 days blood on your hands," but it is not clear how recent it is.

"We will not be commenting or speculating while there is an ongoing police investigation, what we are clear on is there is no place for this kind of violence in our society," the spokesperson said.

"Sharon will not be deterred and will continue to support her constituents in Washington and Gateshead South as she does day in, day out."

TWFRS sent seven appliances to the fire and no causalities were reported.

Labour councillor Phil Tye, chair of TWFRS, said: "Our thoughts are with everyone affected by this incident.

"I'd like to thank our firefighters and control staff for their dedication and teamwork during what may be a challenging investigation."

During a question at the House of Commons earlier, Labour MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East Andy McDonald said: "I'm sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to our colleague in Washington and Gateshead South for the appalling fire at her office overnight, and send our very best wishes to her and her staff."

Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty said he was not aware of the "terrible instance" but he was "sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with our colleague".

He added: "I think particularly in light of international events, and the tragic loss of colleagues, this all the more underlines why we must have security and safety to go about democratic debate in this country, whatever our views, in a safe and secure way."

Follow BBC Sunderland on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.

Charlie Kirk, an influential conservative activist and close ally of US President Donald Trump, was shot dead while speaking at an event at a university in Utah.

There's still a lot that is unclear about the incident but here is what we do know.

What happened?

Kirk, 31, had been invited to Utah Valley University (UVU) and was seated under a white gazebo addressing a crowd of about 3,000 people in the quad - an outdoor bowl courtyard.

According to eyewitnesses and videos taken at the scene, he was responding to a question about gun violence when a single shot rang out around 12:20 local time.

Kirk can be seen recoiling in his chair, blood on his neck, before the terrified crowd starts running.

"I heard a loud shot, a loud bang and then I saw his body actually - in slow motion - kind of fall over," one eyewitness told reporters.

"We all dropped to the ground, and I want to say we sat like that for about 30 to 45 seconds, and then everyone around us got up and started running," said Emma Pitts, a reporter from the Deseret News who was at the scene.

Kirk was rushed to hospital in a private vehicle - his death was confirmed by Trump hours later.

The university campus was evacuated, as authorities hunt for the shooter.

Kirk's wife and two children were on campus at the time, but are safe. No-one else was injured.

Who is the suspect?

Authorities say this was an assassination - but we don't know who shot Kirk, or why.

Two people were arrested in the hours after the incident and later released. They have "no current ties" to the fatal incident, Utah officials have said.

"This shooting is still an active investigation," the Department of Public Safety - which covers law enforcement in the state - said in its latest update.

A large manhunt for the shooter is under way. The BBC's Regan Morris, who is at the campus, said it has been locked down and heavily armed police were going door-to-door.

Law enforcement officials say the killer is believed to have fired the fatal shot from the roof of a building near the courtyard where Kirk was speaking. They have said they are studying CCTV from the university and believe the suspect was "dressed in dark clothing".

BBC Verify has been examining videos posted on social media, which people are claiming may show a "shooter" on the roof of a university building in the aftermath of the attack.

We zoomed in on the image, but the quality is too poor to make out what the dark shape pictured is.

Using features of the building shown, we identified it as UVU's Losee Center – which a campus spokesperson has said is where the shot came from.

The video was posted on X after the shooting. We cannot verify when it was filmed.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

Kirk was one of the most high-profile conservative activists and media personalities in the US and a trusted ally of president Trump. He was a guest at his inauguration and a regular visitor to the White House.

As an 18-year-old in 2012, he co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a student organisation that aims to spread conservative ideals at liberal-leaning US colleges.

He became known for holding open-air debates on campuses across the country, fielding rapid-fire questions in a signature "change-my-mind"-style - just like he was doing on Wednesday at the time he was shot.

His social media and daily podcast often shared clips of him debating people on issues such as gun rights, climate change, faith and family values.

He has, however, attracted criticism for promoting controversial and at times conspiratorial beliefs.

Kirk is considered by others to be a champion of free speech, is credited with playing a key role in convincing younger voters to turn out for Trump in last year's election, and became valued within the administration for his keen understanding of the grassroots Maga movement.

What has the reaction been?

There has been an outpouring of grief and anger from across the political spectrum in the US.

"The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie," Trump said in a statement on Truth Social.

"He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me," the president added, ordering that all flags be flown at half-mast across the country.

All living former US presidents have also offered their condolences. Joe Biden, Trump's predecessor, said there is "no place in our country for this kind of violence", while Barack Obama called the shooting a "despicable act" and said his family was praying for Kirk's loved ones.

Likewise a string of key White House officials have expressed their sorrow - including Health Secretary RFK Jr and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer has also offered his sympathy in a statement. "We must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear."

Italy's Prime Minister Girogia Meloni said the "atrocious murder" was "a deep wound for democracy" while Argentinian President Javier Milei paid tribute to Kirk as "a formidable disseminator of the ideas of freedom and staunch defender of the West".

Is political violence in the US increasing?

In the first six months of this year, the US has experienced about 150 politically-motivated attacks – nearly twice as many as over the same period last year, an expert has told Reuters.

Mike Jensen - from the University of Maryland, which for over 50 years has tracked political violence in a database - said the US is in a "a very, very dangerous spot right now".

"This could absolutely serve as a kind of flashpoint that inspires more of it."

Kirk's murder is the latest in a string of high-profile attacks against political leaders in the US – including two attempted assassinations on Trump during his 2024 election campaign.

The president was injured in ear after he was shot at a rally in Butler, Arizona, last July and authorities say they thwarted a second attempt on his life at his West Palm Beach golf course two months later.

From the Oval Office on Wednesday night, Trump said "radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people".

Comments like these – which he has made regularly – have stirred controversy. Critics say they neglect to acknowledge that the spate of violence is affecting left-leaning politicians too, and could incite further violence against Trump's political opponents.

In June, Minnesota's top Democratic legislator and her husband were murdered in their home.

In April, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro's house was burned in an arson attack, while the Democrat and his family slept inside.

Other incidents this year include politically motivated fire attacks on Tesla dealerships and the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington.

And in 2022, the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was bludgeoned with a hammer after a man broke into the couple's home looking for the top-ranking Democrat with the intention of taking her hostage.

"The horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible," Pelosi said in a post on X on Wednesday.

Former US representative Gabby Giffords – who survived being shot in the head during a meeting with constituents in 2011 – also condemned the attack.

"Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence."