Details of a new UK clinical trial to assess the risks and benefits of puberty-blocking drugs in children and young people questioning their gender have been announced.

It follows the banning of the drugs for gender treatment last year after a major review raised concerns about the lack of clinical evidence over their safety for under-18s.

Researchers from King's College London say the trial will involve around 220 children under the age of 16 who are going through puberty, and will examine the impact of the drugs on their physical, social and emotional wellbeing.

Some clinicians and campaigners question whether the trial is ethical.

Prof Emily Simonoff, study leader and professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at King's College London (KCL), said: "We know there are ongoing societal discussions about gender transition, but this research is focused solely on informing and improving healthcare by better understanding how to support the physical and mental health of young people with gender incongruence."

Puberty blockers, also known as puberty suppressing hormones (PSH), are drugs used to delay or prevent puberty happening.

They were used to treat some young people with gender incongruence - when someone's gender doesn't match the sex they were registered at birth - or with gender dysphoria, when it causes significant distress.

As a result of the uncertainty over the safety of the drugs, highlighted by the Cass review into gender care, led by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, doctors can now only offer the treatment to under-18s as part of a research study.

Last year, the government brought in a UK-wide indefinite ban on the drugs being prescribed privately or by the NHS to children and young people questioning their gender identity.

The new clinical trial, called Pathway, will involve children who are currently accessing gender services and have a diagnosis of gender incongruence.

They will all have reached puberty, but will be younger than 16 - and will have to meet strict criteria, undergo intensive medical and psychological screening before they are allowed to start taking puberty blockers.

A team of specialist NHS doctors must have a full picture of the young person's wellbeing before deciding if they think they are suitable for the treatment.

The young person will also have to show they have a good enough understanding of the potential impact of taking puberty blockers to give their consent, and their parent or legal guardian will need to agree. They will be provided with ongoing psychological support.

To explore the impact of the drugs, the researchers plan to start one group on the treatment straight away and another group 12 months later. The children in these groups will be chosen randomly.

The KCL researchers said there would be no minimum age for taking the drugs, but puberty normally starts around the age of 11 for girls and 12 for boys.

The trial will look at issues such as bone density, brain development and mental health and wellbeing over time.

The research team said the trial had been given ethical approval and was expected to start in January, with five to six children recruited every month. The first results should be available in around four years.

Alongside this, a larger observational study involving 3,000 children will research different types of support and how effective they are.

The puberty blockers trial has already proved controversial, with campaigners threatening legal action.

Keira Bell, who took the Tavistock gender clinic to court in 2020 after she was given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a teenager, said the trial should be halted immediately. If it is not, she says she and another campaigner will start judicial review proceedings at the High Court.

She said it was "disgusting" that children were being put on the drugs when they had already been banned because they were "unsafe".

In her case, the High Court ruled that under-16s were "unlikely to be able to give informed consent" to puberty blockers, but this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which ruled that doctors can judge whether young people can give consent to the treatment.

Some clinicians from the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, which campaigns for rigorous science and improved treatment options for gender-questioning people, have also questioned whether the trial can be carried out ethically.

A spokesperson for charity Stonewall, which campaigns for the rights of LGBTQ+ people, said all young people should have access to the very best medical care, guided by evidence.

"We urge the government and policymakers to invest in delivering excellent healthcare for trans young people and to make sure the voices of trans young people and their families are at its core."

Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has announced she will resign from office in January, an unexpected turn for the high-profile Republican days after a public feud with President Donald Trump.

Greene, who became one of Trump's Maga superstars in US politics, posted a video statement on social media announcing she would leave Congress on 5 January 2026.

"I look forward to a new path ahead," she said in a social media post.

The announcement came just a few days after she and President Donald Trump had vehement disagreements over the release of Justice Department files related to late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

In a video statement, Greene ticked off a list of achievements and criticised the president, who threatened to back a Republican candidate to unseat her in next year's election.

"I have too much self respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms."

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.

George Clarke and several of his fellow Strictly Come Dancing stars were scrolling through their social feeds last month when something stopped them in their tracks.

Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman had just announced in an Instagram video that they were stepping down as presenters of the hit BBC One show after 21 and 11 years respectively.

Not that the contestants of the current series knew - this was news to them.

"I think we found out as everybody else did, just on their socials, which I'm constantly refreshing anyway, as I'm a big fan," said Clarke, a YouTuber and podcaster.

"I don't think anybody expected it."

"We'd just finished on Lorraine, and we just looked at our phones and we saw it on social media," added Emmerdale actor Lewis Cope.

"We were so shocked. And then we were told later, it had to be that way, and they couldn't really give anyone a heads up."

"No one saw it coming," drag queen and Strictly star La Voix said.

Daly and Winkleman's revelation sparked a huge reaction online, with the pair saying in a joint statement at the time that they "were always going to leave together and now feels like the right time".

It's the right time for them, but a rocky time for the show - following several controversies in recent years.

And on Thursday night, it emerged that an unnamed Strictly star was arrested last month on suspicion of rape. Hertfordshire Police said the man was released on bail under investigation.

The development is not understood to be related to the current series of Strictly.

Nearly one month on from Daly and Winkleman's announcement, BBC News spoke to the Strictly contestants ahead of the show heading to the Blackpool Tower Ballroom this weekend.

Much attention has turned to who may replace the presenting pair, with Alan Carr and Holly Willoughby among the names being speculated upon.

EastEnders star Balvinder Sopal said "you feel like it's the end of an era, and you don't know what the show is going to look like in the future".

Speaking to the Rest is Entertainment podcast this week, Kate Phillips, the BBC's chief content officer, admitted her inbox had been "inundated" with people expressing interest in the job.

"We have had so many people who are keen to be considered, which is great."

Blackpool week is here at last

For many celebrities and professionals, it's a major goal to reach the annual episode filmed at Blackpool Tower ballroom, which usually marks the halfway point in the competition and is a change of scenery from the usual location of Elstree Studios.

La Voix won't be joining the stars in the 19th century ballroom after being forced to withdraw because of injury, so will get a pass through to next week under Strictly rules, but the six other remaining couples will compete alongside live performances from Lewis Capaldi and Steps.

Former Strictly finalists Ashley Roberts, Danny Mac, Jay McGuiness and Layton Williams will also return for the special.

Who's dancing to what?

• Alex and Johannes - Couple's Choice to History Repeating and Look At Me by Propellerheads ft Miss Shirley Bassey and Geri Halliwell
• Amber and Nikita - Quickstep to Reach by S Club 7
• Balvinder and Julian - Argentine Tango to The Logical Song by Supertramp
• George and Alexis - Salsa to Rock This Party (Everybody Dance Now) by Bob Sinclar
• Karen and Carlos - Paso Doble to O Fortuna by Carmina Burana
• Lewis and Katya - Charleston to I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor by Arctic Monkeys

For Cope, it feels like an "achievement" to have reached Blackpool week.

"Although you have the themed weeks leading up to it, it feels like the first big milestone," he said. "And the fish and chips are really nice."

Former England footballer Karen Carney feels similar.

"I spoke to my sister this morning, and she was like, they're really proud we've reached this milestone. They didn't think I'd be able to do it," she said.

All the stars have been putting in long hours as they get ready for the experience.

But former Love Island winner Amber Davies is trying to approach Blackpool as she would any other week.

"I don't want to look back with regrets. I'm literally pushing my mind and my body to the furthest it can go," she said.

Controversies linger

Amid the glitz of the dancefloor, Strictly, which has been airing since 2004, has faced multiple controversies in recent years relating to the behaviour of some of its professionals and celebrity guests, with some alleging a toxic culture on the show.

We asked the current stars whether they've felt this to be the case.

Doctor Who actress Alex Kingston, for her part, says she "doesn't read stuff like that" in the press.

"The thing that I have found really so extraordinary and unexpected is that everybody is so lovely," she said.

"No one can make Strictly not exhausting and not painful. Your feet kill and your back hurts and you're trying desperately to hold your physical self together week by week, but the emotional support is incredible," La Voix added.

Since we did those interviews, the Sun reported this week that a male Strictly star is alleged to have raped a woman after a BBC event.

According to the paper, the woman was not a contestant or pro on the show.

And then there's that other BBC show...

Another BBC TV behemoth - Traitors - has risen to new heights this year with Celebrity Traitors, with up to 13 million viewers tuning in - more than double the number who watched this year's Strictly launch show.

So, we asked the contestants, has Traitors stolen Strictly's sparkle this year?

Cope, for his part, isn't too worried. "I think it's brilliant, isn't it? Just more great shows on television," he said. "I think it's only a positive."

"There's enough success in the world for everything," Davies agreed.

"And also," she added, "we've got one diamond amongst both of them - Claudia."

Strictly Come Dancing's Blackpool special is on BBC One and BBC iPlayer at 6.35pm on Saturday.

"Whenever you're ready," says Thom Yorke, adopting the tone of a schoolteacher waiting for an unruly class to settle down, as Radiohead get ready to play their encore at London's O2 Arena.

It's a rare flash of humour from the frontman, whose onstage utterings are mostly limited to mumbled "thank yous". But it's also an acknowledgment of how long fans have been waiting for this show.

It is now 10 years since Radiohead last released new material, and 99 months since their last UK gig.

Anticipation for their return has been building ever since they announced a limited run of concerts in September. Setlists from early shows in Spain and Italy have generated news stories ("Radiohead play Nice Dream for the first time since 2009"), as fans pore over the song choices.

According to one source, they've rehearsed 65 different numbers.

At the O2, the band sift through their entire discography - from the arena rock anthems of 1994's The Bends to the celestial ballads of A Moon Shaped Pool, via the layered electronics of Kid A, currently celebrating its 25th anniversary.

There are some signs that Radiohead are a bit rusty. A few timing and tuning issues crop up, which could easily be the result of a first night in a new venue, but which feel odd for a band of such technical proficiency.

But when it comes together, it's a rapturous, spell-binding sight.

They begin with the spacey, hypnotic Planet Telex, and follow it up with a crunchy version of 2+2=5, written in 2003 as a reaction to George W Bush's "War on Terror", and taking on new urgency in a world where political norms have seemingly been turned upside down.

By the third song, Sit Down, Stand Up, they're flexing their musical muscles, with an extended outro of percussive lunacy, aided by US session musician Chris Vatalaro.

His addition to the line-up is a giveaway. Radiohead's secret sauce has always been their rhythm section - who manage to locate sinewy, danceable grooves even when presented with their bandmate's most challenging material.

The prowling bassline of National Anthem and the slamming drum loops of Idioteque, in particular, give the audience ample opportunity to jump up and down.

That said, it's amusing to watch bassist Colin Greenwood try (and fail) to get the crowd clapping in time to the glitchy and unconventional rhythms of 15 Step.

Instead, most of them simply bob their heads up and down in unified appreciation of the music. At times, it looks like a convention of nodding dogs.

Cushioned between the more experimental songs, however, were the real crowd-pleasers: An elegiac version of Lucky, a beautifully twisted No Surprises and a genuinely sublime version of Weird Fishes/Arpeggi.

I have a theory, however, that the band's notorious dislike of "the old stuff" is an elaborate ruse. They've never really stopped playing songs from The Bends and OK Computer - but the suggestion they won't makes it all the more exciting when they break into something anthemic like Fake Plastic Trees.

That song opened Friday night's encore, which dwelt largely on their 90s material, including Let Down - a deep cut that's had a new lease of life on TikTok - and the epic Paranoid Android.

Introducing a muscular version of Just, Yorke explains that it was written "on a freezing cold farm in 1994", in a period where they thought they'd only be remembered for one song: Their 1992 breakout Creep.

We all know the story ended differently, but the reunion does find Radiohead in a strange position.

This tour comes with no new material, and the last seven years have been so fertile with side projects, most notably Thom Yorke and guitarist Jonny Greenwood's three albums as The Smile, that it seemed Radiohead's members might have permanently moved on.

Several factors got in the way - grief, parenthood, mental health and rumours of intra-band tension over Israel.

As recently as August, Yorke said a reunion was "not on the cards from where I'm sitting".

All of which makes the decision to play in the round, packed like sardines in a crushed tin can, all the more significant.

The group are symbolically returning to the rehearsal room, playing off each other as much as they are playing to the audience.

Yorke glides across the stage, doing that dance he does, moving from acoustic guitar to electric piano and back again.

During Idioteque, guitarist Ed O'Brien catches him mid-transit, and they holler the lyrics directly to one another. At the start of Jigsaw Falling Into Place, Yorke and Greenwood face each other and play duelling guitars.

It suggests the tour has been an act of healing, even if the band have been assigned separate dressing rooms for the first time in their career.

Whether that leads to anything more is still up for debate. "We haven't thought past the tour," Yorke recently told the Times. "I'm just stunned we got this far."

The delighted fans who queued for the Tube home singing Karma Police will be hoping everything is in its right place for a fully-fledged comeback.

Full setlist

Planet Telex

2 + 2 = 5

Sit Down, Stand Up

Lucky

Bloom

15 Step

The Gloaming

Kid A

No Surprises

Videotape

Weird Fishes/Arpeggi

Idioteque

Everything in Its Right Place

The National Anthem

Daydreaming

Jigsaw Falling Into Place

Bodysnatchers

There There

Encore:

Fake Plastic Trees

Let Down

Paranoid Android

You and Whose Army?

A Wolf at the Door

Just

Karma Police

US President Donald Trump met New York City's newly elected mayor Zohran Mamdani at the White House in what was billed as the political showdown of the year - but instead became a praise fest.

In his election victory speech, the self-described Democratic socialist mayor called Trump a "despot."

And before Friday's meeting, the president's spokeswoman had billed Mamdani's visit as a "communist coming to the White House".

But standing side-by-side in the Oval Office, the two men struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone.

Over and over, both men emphasised their shared interest in addressing New York City's affordability crisis. They smiled often, and Trump even appeared amused as reporters asked him about the political attacks Mamdani had fired his way.

The tone of the meeting appeared to strike political observers off guard, but offered a signal that both men understand that tackling the affordability crisis is critical to their political success.

Whether the truce will last once Mamdani takes office on 1 January remains to be seen.

Until then, "I'll be cheering for him," Trump said.

Trump full of praise

The conciliatory tone was evident from the moment they started speaking to the press.

Facing the media after a private meeting, Mamdani stood to Trump's right with his hand clasped, as the president sat behind the Resolute Desk. Their body language was relaxed – particularly Trump.

Not only did Trump refrain from attacking Mamdani, he actually praised him numerous times.

Trump expressed hope that Mamdani would be a "really great mayor".

Later, the president added he was "confident that he can do a very good job".

Brushing off questions about jihad and fascism

Mamdani and Trump traded political barbs throughout the mayoral election. A reporter in the room reminded the two men that Trump had called Mamdani a "communist" and Mamdani referred to the president as a "despot".

But today, both deflected multiple questions about their previous statements and pivoted back to praise.

Trump even let Mamdani answer a question about whether the mayor-elect thought the president was a "fascist".

"That's ok, you can just say yes," Trump interjected, giving Mamdani a light tap on the arm and smiling. "It's easier than explaining."

The closest Trump got to criticising Mamdani's politics was telling reporters, "He's got views that are little out there".

Perhaps most strikingly, Trump swatted away an attack that one of his top political allies running for governor of New York had lodged against Mamdani.

"Do you think you're standing next to a 'jihadist' right now in the oval office?" a reporter asked, quoting Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.

"No I don't," Trump quickly said.

"You say things sometimes in a campaign," Trump said of Stefanik. "She's a very capable person."

Bonding over New York roots

Mamdani and Trump have something in common: they're both New Yorkers, and both have called the borough of Queens home.

Trump's childhood home is in the neighbourhood of Jamaica Estates, while Mamdani currently resides in Astoria.

The two had a "shared love" of the city, Mamdani said.

Though Trump rarely spends time in his namesake Manhattan skyscraper these days, he spoke fondly of his hometown throughout the news conference.

"This city could be unbelievable, if he could be a spectacular success, I'll be very happy," Trump said.

At one point, Trump even suggested that in a different political lifetime, he would have liked to be mayor of New York himself.

Affordability focus

Perhaps part of the reason the two men appeared in lock step on Friday was their shared focus on cost-of-living issues.

Trump won his re-election last year by relentlessly hammering the issue of high inflation that had frustrated voters in 2024. As consumers grow restless about the cost of groceries, housing, and other essentials, Trump has tried to convey a message of economic stability.

But in elections earlier this month, Republicans struggled and Democrats won key races. All eyes are peering forward to the midterm elections next year, where control of the US Congress will be up for grabs.

During his election campaign, Mamdani maintained a laser-focus on the lack of affordable housing and proposed freezing rent increases on certain rent-stabilised apartments, among other housing proposals.

Mamdani said he and the president had discussed how to "deliver affordability to New Yorkers".

Whenever he was asked a question about their differing views, the mayor-elect brought the conversation back to this topic.

Facing one question about their different views on achieving peace in the Middle East, Mamdani responded that Trump voters had expressed to him a wish for "an end to forever wars" and for leaders to address "the cost of living crisis".

A complication for Republicans' strategy?

There are still major political issues that could quickly put the two men back in opposition.

A reporter asked about the potential for federal immigration enforcement in the city, which has outraged Democrats and some immigrant communities in New York.

Mamdani said he discussed federal immigration enforcement operations in New York, and the concerns from residents about how they are being conducted.

Trump said they discussed crime more than immigration.

"He doesn't want to see crime and I don't want to see crime," the president said. He had "very little doubt" the two would get along on that issue.

Trump even stunningly said he would feel safe living in a Mamdani-led New York.

But as the Trump administration continues to set aggressive deportation goals, it's possible that the two men could wind up in opposition to each other once again.

Also, another potential problem lingers beyond the pair and their specific policies.

Republicans have hinted that they want to use Mamdani as a political foil in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, where control of the US Congress will be on the ballot.

But in the Oval Office while praising Mamdani, the president said he believed the new mayor would "surprise some conservative people".

This could complicate Trump's own political party's strategy.

In my many years as a journalist, I never thought I would be asking someone how it feels to have trout sperm injected into their face.

And yet, here I am.

Abby Warnes is lying on a large, black padded chair at a small aesthetics clinic in south Manchester.

She winces as a small cannula is delicately inserted into her cheek.

"Ouch. Ouch," she exclaims.

I should make it clear that 29-year-old Abby is not actually receiving a pure dose of trout sperm.

The lower part of her face is being injected with tiny fragments of DNA, known as polynucleotides, which have been extracted from either trout or salmon sperm.

Why? Well, interestingly, our DNA is pretty similar to that of a fish.

So the hope is Abby's body will not only welcome these tiny strands of fish DNA, her skin cells will be spurred into action, producing more collagen and elastin, two proteins which are vital for maintaining the structural integrity of our skin.

For Abby, the aim is to freshen her skin, keep it healthy, and hopefully, treat the acne she's lived with for many years by reducing scarring and redness.

"I just want to target those problem areas," she explains.

Polynucleotides are being touted as the next big skincare "miracle" and are rapidly gaining popularity after a number of celebrities have spoken candidly about their "salmon sperm facials".

Earlier this year, Charli XCX told her nine million Instagram followers that she felt "fillers are kind of over now", and explained she had moved onto polynucleotides, which are "kinda like deep vitamins".

Kim and Khloe Kardashian are also reportedly avid fans. And when asked about her skincare routine on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live, Jennifer Aniston responded: "Don't I have beautiful salmon skin?"

So, despite their fishy beginnings, are polynucleotides transforming skincare?

"We are having a Benjamin Button moment," Suzanne Mansfield, who works for aesthetics company Dermafocus, tells me.

That's a reference to the 2008 film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, where Brad Pitt plays a man who ages backwards. By the time he's in his later years, he has the skin of a baby's bottom.

While such an effect is highly unlikely and would probably be a tad disconcerting, Ms Mansfield says polynucleotides are forging the way when it comes to regenerative skincare.

A small but growing body of research and clinical trials suggest that injecting polynucleotides can rejuvenate skin, not only making it healthier but potentially reducing fine lines, wrinkles and scars.

"All we are doing, by using it in the aesthetics industry," she says, "is enhancing something the body already does. That's why these are so special."

But they also come with a pretty hefty price tag.

A single session of polynucleotide injections can cost anywhere from £200 to £500 - and it's recommended you have three of these over several weeks.

After that clinics tend to advise you need to top up every six to nine months to maintain the look.

Back at the clinic, Abby's treatment is almost finished.

"Just one area left," Helena Dunk, the aesthetic nurse practitioner who owns the clinic, Skin HD, reassures her.

She says polynucleotides have massively increased in popularity over the past 18 months.

"Half my clients really notice a huge difference - their skin feels more hydrated, healthier, younger - while the other half don't see such a big change. But their skin does tend to feel tighter and fresher."

Abby has already had the area under her eyes injected as part of a three-course treatment at the clinic - and she's really pleased with the results.

She received lots of tiny injections of polynucleotides, which was a "pretty painful procedure", but says it's helped reduce the dark circles under her eyes.

While a growing number of studies consider it a safe and effective treatment, it is still relatively new and some experts warn the hype may be outpacing the science.

Consultant dermatologist Dr John Pagliaro, based in Brisbane, Australia, says that while we know that nucleotides play an important role in our bodies - they are the building blocks of our DNA for a start - he questions whether "injecting salmon DNA, cut into little pieces" into our faces is going to work as well as our own nucleotides.

"We do not have good, strong data," he says. "As a medical specialist, I would want to see at least a few more years of big, credible studies showing safety and efficacy before I started using them in my practice. We're just not there yet."

Charlotte Bickley describes her foray into the world of polynucleotides as "salmon-gate".

The 31-year-old from New York had the treatment last year as part of her "wedding glow up", shortly before she was due to get married.

But Charlotte ended up with a skin infection, inflammation and darker rings under her eyes than before she had the treatment.

"I got the complete opposite of what I wanted," she says. "I trusted that doctor, but he's left me scarred."

Charlotte believes she was injected too deeply under her eyes, causing a negative reaction. There can be side effects - such as redness, swelling and bruising but these tend to be temporary.

In some cases, people can have an allergic reaction, or, if polynucleotides are not injected properly, there are longer term risks, such as skin pigmentation and infections.

Polynucleotides are widely used across the UK. They are registered as medical devices with the Medicines Health and Regulatory Authority (MHRA) but they are not regulated like medicines.

They have not been approved by the UK’s equivalent in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"I just keep thinking, 'Why did I go through with it?'" Charlotte says. "When something goes wrong on my face I hyperfixate on it."

She's paid thousands in medical bills to try to rectify the situation, but 10 months on, there's still some scarring below her eyes.

"I would never have salmon DNA injected into my face again," Charlotte says, "ever."

Ashton Collins, director of Save Face, an organisation which campaigns for better regulation of the cosmetic industry and who runs a government-approved register of clinics in the UK, says polynucleotides are generally considered a safe treatment when administered by a medically-trained professional and the brand of polynucleotides used is from a reputable company.

"But, we are now seeing products coming onto the market that haven't been tested properly, that's the worry," she says.

Dr Sophie Shotter, president of the British College of Aesthetic Medicine, agrees.

"Due to the lack of regulation, anyone can use products that have not been robustly tested. It is a real issue."

In her opinion, are polynucleotides effective though?

"I have them on my shelf, in my toolbox. I definitely offer them to clients, who want a natural look and want to potentially invest long-term," Dr Shotter says.

"Polynucleotides as a treatment is not the panacea. There are plenty of other treatments out there that can do similar, and have more data behind them."

There is no one treatment that will work for everyone, she adds.

"We all respond differently to different things, and that is not always predictable."

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

There's a new song doing the rounds, and in the immortal words of Kylie Minogue, you just can't get it out of your head.

But what if it was created by a robot, or the artist themself is a product of artificial intelligence (AI)? Do streaming sites have an obligation to label music as AI-generated? And does it even matter, if you like what you hear?

A survey published last week suggested 97% of respondents could not spot an AI-generated song. But there are some telltale signs - if you know where to look.

Here's a quick guide.

No live performances or social media presence

AI music became one of last summer's hottest topics after accusations the band The Velvet Sundown was AI-generated sent them viral.

The band, who had no record label and a minimal social media footprint, quickly racked up hundreds of thousands of monthly listeners on Spotify after releasing two albums just weeks apart - and the music world grew suspicious.

The band initially denied the claims, later describing themselves as a synthetic project "guided by human creative direction, and composed, voiced and visualised with the support of artificial intelligence".

They claimed the project was an "artistic provocation", not a trick, but many fans felt betrayed.

Internet sleuths were suspicious of the band's airbrushed photos, which featured non-descript backgrounds and a warm orange filter.

There was also no record of them having performed live – no glowing reviews from fans posted online, nor any concert photos or videos. The band members had not given interviews and did not appear to have individual social media accounts.

Looking into the real-life and social media presence of an artist can be one helpful indicator of whether or not they are real. But experts tell the BBC that fast-developing, sophisticated technology means it is increasingly hard to know when a song has been made using AI.

Still, while it may be tricky, they say there are signs listeners can be alert to.

'A mashup of rock hits in a blender'

When LJ Rich started creating AI music around five years ago, she recalls how it could only generate three seconds at a time, taking about 10 hours to create a minute of audio.

Now, an entire song can be summoned rapidly with a single prompt, sparking what industry experts have described as an "explosion" of AI music, sometimes referred to as "slop" - on streaming platforms.

A song with a formulaic feel - sweet but without much substance or emotional weight - can be a sign of AI, says the musician and technology speaker, as well as vocals that feel breathless.

AI songs tend to stick to generic verse-chorus structures, and usually don't have a satisfying ending. AI is also more likely to create lyrics that follow a correct grammatical structure, says Rich, whereas some of the most beautiful or memorable words penned by humans don't always make sense.

Just ask Alicia Keys and her "concrete jungle where dreams are made of", or The Rolling Stones and their flirtation with double negatives in (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction.

"If it doesn't feel emotional, it's a really big part," the former BBC Click presenter continues. "Does it create that tension and resolution that is a fundamental part of the music that we love? Does it have a story inside it?"

Another tell-tale sign is unrealistic levels of productivity. Professor Gina Neff, from the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, describes how one artist was recently believed to be AI after dropping multiple soundalike albums simultaneously.

Their songs resembled a mashup of 80s rock bands – like "really classic rock hits that had been put in a blender".

"This will be fine for background music for most people," she continues, "but it won't work for creating the superstars of the future who, of course, draw on the past but then make something completely new out of it."

'AI hasn't felt heartbreak yet'

Sometimes, what might stand out is a song that sounds almost too perfect, lacking minor flaws and variances.

This could mean no strain in the vocals, and overly polished production, according to Tony Rigg, music industry advisor and lecturer in music industry management at the University of Lancashire.

He adds that odd phrasing, unnatural emotional delivery, and lyrics that feel generic or repetitive can also be clues.

"AI hasn't felt heartbreak yet... It knows patterns," he explains. "What makes music human is not just sound but the stories behind it."

It's also worth paying close attention to the vocals. AI "singers" often sound a little slurred. Consonants and plosives (hard sounds like "p" and "t") aren't quite right. You might hear "ghost" harmonies, where backing vocals appear and disappear at random.

However, Rigg calls these signs "hints not proof", acknowledging it is not very easy for the casual listener to detect AI-generated songs.

As well as being used to generate full songs, AI is also becoming a tool some established artists are using to support their creativity.

There currently isn't any obligation – or consistent way – for artists to let fans know if and how they are using AI.

Some are very open: the Beatles, for example, used machine learning to extract the voice of John Lennon from a 1970s cassette recording to release what they called their "last song", Now and Then, in 2023.

And artists including Imogen Heap and Timbaland have created AI personas and released singles under their names.

Last month, Heap released the song Aftercare with her AI model ai.Mogen, trained on her voice.

She created the voice model as a chatbot - a "desperate attempt" to keep up with a deluge of messages and requests including from fans - but more recently, it has featured on several songs and allowed Heap to take part in more collaborations than she otherwise would have due to time constraints.

While "it does sound different if you really know my voice", she says she has put a lot of work into making the AI version of her voice sound human and doesn't think listeners would be able to tell.

Heap isn't trying to mislead listeners – ai.Mogen is listed as a co-contributor on the track.

But she hopes if people feel a human connection to the song, without already knowing part of the vocals are sung by her AI model, they might reconsider any preconceived negative ideas or fears they have about AI.

"I hope that people listen, don't realise, find peace in that," she tells the BBC.

She says she isn't against using AI to actually create music, but it's just not something she's got around to doing yet.

Heap believes there should be more transparency around what goes into a song, and how AI has been used.

Citing the example of someone reading the label of a microwave ready meal so they know the ingredients, she says: "We need that for music, and we need that for AI."

Steps toward transparency

There is currently no legal obligation for streaming platforms to label AI-generated songs, despite increasing calls for them to signpost such tracks.

In January, the streaming platform Deezer launched an AI detection tool, followed this summer by a system which tags AI-generated music.

Deezer says its detection system can flag tracks made with the most prolific AI music creation tools, and is working on expanding its ability to detect music made by others. It says the risk of false positives - eg incorrectly flagging a track created by a human - is very low.

This week, the company said a third (34%) of content uploaded to its platform was fully AI-generated – about 50,000 tracks a day.

Manuel Moussallam, Deezer's director of research, says his team was so surprised by how many tracks were flagged up by the detector when it first launched they were "pretty convinced we had an issue".

The tool quickly flagged up the music by The Velvet Sundown – the band who went viral over the summer – as being "100% AI-generated".

Other platforms have recently announced steps toward more transparency.

In September, Spotify said it would roll out a new spam filter later this year to identify "bad actors", and prevent "slop" being recommended to listeners. In the past year, it has removed more than 75 million spam tracks.

It is also supporting a way to enable artists to say where and how AI was used in a track, through a system by a consortium of industry members called DDEX. This information will be included in the metadata of a track and displayed on its app.

Spotify says it is about recognising listeners' desire for more information, as well as "strengthening trust".

"It's not about punishing artists who use AI responsibly or down-ranking tracks for disclosing information about how they were made."

After all that - does it matter?

If you've fallen hard for a new artist, does it matter if they or their songs are made by AI?

Some believe the presence of AI is irrelevant – engagement is driven by enjoyment, and music people love is already serving its primary purpose.

Others say music fans should be able to make informed choices about what they listen to.

Artists have shared deep concerns around the impact of AI, and hundreds of musicians including Dua Lipa and Sir Elton John have protested about the use of their songs in the training of AI tools.

For LJ Rich, the use of AI in music raises many "weird and beautiful ethical questions" which remain as yet unanswered.

"Like if the music makes the hairs on the back of your neck go up, does it matter if an AI wrote it or not?"

The Tartan Army shook the earth as they celebrated Scotland's men qualifying for a first World Cup in 28 years.

The British Geological Survey (BGS) recorded the equivalent to an "extremely small earthquake" after Kenny McLean lobbed Denmark goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel to secure a 4-2 win.

A second significant amount of seismic activity came moments later when the final whistle sounded on Wednesday night.

Readings were recorded at the BGS station at Glasgow Geothermal Observatory in Dalmarnock – about 2km (1.2 miles) from Hampden Park.

A small surge was also detected around the time Kieran Tierney curled in Scotland's third, three minutes into injury time.

However, the BGS said the main peak of activity came between 21:48 and 21:50 – right as McLean scored from the halfway line.

An official attendance of 49,587 was recorded at the game.

The BGS said the activity registered between magnitude -1 and zero on the Richter Scale and produced the equivalent of 200kW of power, enough to power between 25 and 40 car batteries.

It is also the same as blasting a football at about 900 m/s (2,013 mph).

That is about 15 times faster than the fastest a ball has ever been struck, thought to be about 131.2 mph (58 m/s) by the Brazilian defender Ronny Heberson in Sporting Club de Portugal's win over Naval in 2007.

Taylor Swift fans were also recorded as making the earth move during last summer's trio of concerts at Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh.

But the BGS said it was unable to directly compare the two events due to "different site conditions".

The BGS said about 300 naturally occurring earthquakes happen in the UK every year, but only about 30 are of significant power to be felt by people.

A 3.3 magnitude earthquake was felt in homes across Perthshire last month.

'Realigned' Joshua joins Team Usyk

• Boxing schedule and results 2025

  Published
  5 days ago

  

• Watch every Born to Brawl episode

  Published
  28 April 2024

  

More boxing from the BBC

• Notifications, social media and more with BBC Sport

  Published
  16 August

  

All mention of fossil fuels, by far the largest contributor to climate change, has been dropped from the draft deal under negotiation at the COP30 UN climate talks in Belém, Brazil enter their final stretch.

Draft agreements at the meeting of nearly 200 countries usually go through multiple revisions as all parties must agree in order for a deal to pass.

Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and some countries including the UK want the summit to commit countries to stronger, faster action to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

An earlier text included three possible routes to achieve this, but that language has now been dropped after opposition from oil-producing nations.

A source close to the negotiations said that Saudi Arabia and a bloc of nations called the Arab Group are blocking the fossil fuel deal. The BBC has approached Saudi Arabia for comment.

"We express deep concern regarding the current proposal under consideration for a take it or leave it," it said.

"We cannot support an outcome that does not include a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels."

A source close to the negotiations said that Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations are blocking the fossil fuel deal. The BBC has approached Saudi Arabia for comment.

Dropping the language is likely to be a negotiating tactic to raise the temperature at the talks and force countries to come to agreement.

The meeting is a fraught and delicate diplomatic process as countries jostle to protect their national interests, while also attempting to address the issue of climate change.

Some observers question the value of the complex, legalistic talks which almost always over-run.

But others point to the significant advances in measures to tackle climate change, including renewable energy, electric vehicles, and protection of nature in recent years linked to COP agreements.

Other issues discussed at the COP include the gap in climate finance promised by richer nations to developing nations that are most impacted by climate change.

The new draft deal called for global efforts to triple financing available to countries by 2030.

But it did not say if this should come from richer nations or from other sources, like the private sector.

This could anger poorer countries who want stronger support from richer nations and heavily criticised a deal at last year's COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, which they considered paltry.

Deforestation has been been a fraught issue at the meeting, which takes place on the edge of the Brazilian Amazon.

The new draft also weakened language around tackling deforestation.

"For a COP hosted in the Amazon, it's shattering that deforestation is taking a back seat," said Kelly Dent, Director of External Engagement for World Animal Protection.

"The wildlife and indigenous people who call the forest their home deserve better than this."

The two-week meeting has been interrupted by two evacuations.

Last week a group of protesters broke into the COP venue in Belém carrying signs reading "Our forests are not for sale".

On Thursday a fire broke out, burning a hole through the sheeting covering the venue and causing 13 smoke inhalation injuries. The summit was evacuated and closed for at least six hours.

The summit has been praised for including the largest numbers delegates from of indigenous groups yet.

"They punished ordinary people. This is collective punishment."

It's been more than nine months since 54-year-old Nehaya al-Jundi last saw her home in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nur Shams, in the occupied West Bank, after being forced to evacuate by the Israeli military.

"They punished the infrastructure, the institutions and people of the camp."

In a café in nearby Tulkarm, Nehaya speaks to the BBC about her family's panicked flight, as Israeli troops stormed into the camp in early February.

For two days Nehaya watched and listened in terror as military bulldozers razed the area around her house.

"We were besieged inside our house and couldn't leave," she recalls, describing how power, water and internet connections were all severed.

Eventually, on 9 February, Nehaya escaped with her 75-year-old husband, Zaydan, and their teenage daughter Salma.

"When we got out, I was shocked by the damage in the area," she says.

The Israeli military launched "Operation Iron Wall" in late January, sending troops and armour into Nur Shams and two other refugee camps in the northern West Bank, to tackle Palestinian armed groups it said were responsible for attacks on Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers.

The operation followed a largely unsuccessful attempt by the Palestinian Authority to quell the activities of local gunmen, many of them affiliated with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in the parts of the West Bank where it governs and controls security.

By the end of February, the three camps had been all but emptied in the largest displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank since Israel occupied the territory in the 1967 Six Day War.

In Jenin, where the largest of the three camps dominates the western side of the city, we hear similar stories of terrified flight and long months of dislocation.

"We stayed three days in the house without power or water," says 54-year-old Nidal Abu Nase, a development consultant and freelance book editor.

"The shooting never stopped."

When the chance to escape finally arrived, Nidal's family left with little more than their clothes, thinking they would soon be back.

"I never managed to get home to collect my stuff," he says.

Ten months on, Nidal and at least 32,000 residents of the three camps still don't know when they will be allowed to return to their homes.

When that moment finally comes, many will find they no longer have homes to go back to.

Human Rights Watch says Israel has demolished 850 homes and other buildings across all three camps.

Other estimates rate the extent of the damage much higher.

In a report published earlier this week, HRW said Israel's forced, prolonged evacuations and the associated destruction "amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity".

"The Geneva Conventions prohibit displacement of civilians from occupied territory except temporarily for imperative military reasons or the population's security," HRW said.

The group said Israel's actions "may also be considered 'ethnic cleansing'".

In February, Israel's Defence Minister, Israel Katz, said he had instructed the army "to prepare form a prolonged stay in the camps that have been cleared for the coming year".

As the year's end approaches, there's still no end in sight.

An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson told the BBC that "in order to locate and uproot the terrorist infrastructure at its source, the IDF has had to operate for an extended period of time."

But already in August, Katz called the operation a success, saying "there is no terror in the camps and the scope of terror alerts in [the West Bank] has dropped by 80%."

The IDF says it has dismantled bomb-making and other weapons facilities hidden inside all three camps.

It is not clear why Operation Iron Wall continues, although demolitions are still happening in the camps.

It seems clear from the pattern of destruction and the Israeli military's own explanations, that the operation has longer term goals.

In a statement to the BBC, the IDF said armed groups had been able to exploit the densely built environment of the camps, making it hard for the army to move freely.

"The IDF is acting to reshape and stabilise the area," the IDF spokesperson said. "An inseparable part of this effort is the opening of new access routes inside the camps, which requires the demolition of rows of buildings."

Satellite images from all three camps show the extent of the damage, with narrow, barely visible streets now wide enough for military vehicles, including tanks, to pass through.

The demolitions, the IDF spokesperson said, were "based on operational necessity", with residents able to submit objections and petitions to Israel's Supreme Court.

All such petitions - some of which argued that Israel's actions violated international humanitarian law - have been rejected.

According to HRW, Israel's military has been given "wide discretion to invoke the grounds of urgent military necessity".

HRW has called on the Israeli military to halt the forcible displacement of Palestinian civilians throughout occupied Palestinian territory, and allow all the residents of Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams to return to their homes.

For tens of thousands of displaced people, the future remains uncertain.

Nehaya al-Jundi's family eventually found refuge in a nearby village. But with their lives turned upside down and most of their possessions now out of reach, back in the camp, it's been a hard year.

"Everything has been difficult since we left," she says.

Nur Shams' tight-knit community has been scattered across the Tulkarm area. Some are living with relatives, others in rented accommodation.

Many are out of work, dependent on modest handouts from the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority and various NGOs.

With schools run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) also out of action in the camps, education has also been severely impacted.

"My kids were enrolled in UNRWA schools," says Nidal Abu Nase, whose family has been living with relatives since January.

"They went for months without school."

Crucially, the camps' strong communal bonds have been fractured.

The residents of West Bank refugee camps are mostly descended from Palestinians who fled or were driven from their homes during the war surrounding Israel's creation in 1948-49.

"For me, the camp is identity and culture," Nidal says.

"There was love and affection in the camp," Nehaya says, "but not anymore because we are far from each other."

Nehaya has not seen her house since February. Despite recent protests, very few residents have been allowed back into the camps.

The community centre where she ran rehabilitation services for the disabled has been turned into an Israeli military barracks.

And reports from young men who have managed to sneak into Nur Shams suggest that Nehaya's house is no longer habitable.

"They told me the house is wide open - and fully destroyed."

Additional reporting by Alaa Badarneh

While cleaning out their late mother's California attic last Christmas, three brothers made a life-changing discovery under a pile of faded newspapers: one of the first Superman comics ever made.

An original copy of the June 1939 first edition on the Man of Steel's adventures, it was in a remarkably pristine condition.

Now it has become the highest-priced comic book ever sold, fetching $9.12m (£7m) at auction.

Texas-based Heritage Auctions, which hosted Thursday's sale, called it the "pinnacle of comic collecting".

The brothers found six comic books, including Superman #1, in the attic underneath a stack of newspapers inside a cardboard box and surrounded by cobwebs in 2024, Heritage said in a press release.

They waited a few months before contacting the auction house, but once they did, Heritage Auctions vice-president Lon Allen visited them in San Francisco within days, according to the auction house.

The brothers, who have chosen to withhold their names, are "in their 50s and 60s, and their mom had always told them she had an expensive comics collection but never showed them", Mr Allen said in Heritage's press release.

"It's a twist on the old 'Mom threw away my comics' story."

Their mother had held on to the comic books since he she and her brother bought them between the Great Depression and the beginning of World War Two, Heritage said.

Mr Allen added that the cool northern California climate was perfect for preserving old paper.

"If it had been in an attic here in Texas, it would have been ruined," he said.

That helped CGC, a large third-party comics grading service, give this copy of Superman #1 a 9.0 rating on a 10-point scale, topping the previous record of 8.5.

And at its sale price of over $9m, including buyer's premium, Superman #1 easily beat the previous highest-priced comic book ever sold by $3m.

Action Comics No. 1, the 1938 work that first introduced Superman, sold for $6m last year.

The youngest brother said in Heritage's press release that the box had remained forgotten in the back of attic.

"As the years unfolded, life brought about a series of losses and changes," he said. "The demands of everyday survival took centre stage, and the box of comics, once set aside with care and intention, was forgotten. Until last Christmas."

He added: "This isn't simply a story about old paper and ink. This was never just about a collectible.

"This is a testament to memory, family and the unexpected ways the past finds its way back to us."

The Labour MP behind the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales says she is worried some members of the House of Lords are trying to "frustrate" its passage into law.

Kim Leadbeater warned the legislation was approaching a "crunch point" after the number of changes proposed in the Lords rose above 1,000.

The bill, which was passed by MPs in an historic vote in June, must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before becoming law.

But peers are making very slow progress in scrutinising it, meaning that unless they speed up it will almost certainly need to be allocated more debating sessions to avoid running out of time.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first stage in the Lords in September, but will only become law if MPs and peers can agree the final wording before the current session of Parliament ends in the spring.

Peers have so far discussed fewer than 30 of the amendments during two of the four days reserved for committee stage, when the bill is scrutinised line-by-line.

The passage of the bill has been complicated by the fact it was put forward by Leadbeater, a backbench MP, rather than the government, a category of draft law that is vulnerable to running out of debating time.

On Friday, they spent the entire four hours allocated for the day discussing a group of 21 amendments on safeguards designed to prevent people being coerced or encouraged into an assisted death.

Speaking after Friday's debate, Leadbeater told the BBC she respected those with concerns, adding that most peers had been "engaging in good faith" and "I know the Lords want to do a good job".

But she added that some of the debate in the Lords had been "repetitive", whilst some of the issues raised by peers had already been "discussed at length" by MPs.

Adding that "in practice, the protection is there", she said: "I do worry that some of the processes and procedures that can be used are being used to frustrate the bill, and that is deeply disappointing and upsetting."

'Respect democracy'

A similar bill to legalise assisted dying did not make it through the Lords in 2014 - although unlike Leadbeater's draft law, it had not already been approved by MPs.

Leadbeater said she was "concerned" about the Lords potentially trying to block a bill after the Commons had already "voted to change the law".

Adding that "now is the time" to update the law, she said: "the Lords have to respect that, and we have to respect democracy".

Legalisation of assisted dying did not feature in the manifestos of any of the major parties prior to last year's general election, and parties have agreed to treat it as a matter of conscience, meaning they will not tell their MPs how to vote.

Critics and opponents of the bill have insisted the legislation requires significant redrafting to ensure any system properly protects vulnerable people.

During the earlier debate, before Leadbeater's intervention, former DUP leader Baron Dodds of Duncairn said the bill needed further changes to ensure "all the necessary safeguards" were in place.

He added that the Lords would not need to spend so much time on the bill "had some of these issues been dealt with in a different way" by MPs.

Former High Court judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss expressed a similar sentiment, telling peers: "There are many of us who do not like the bill, but there is a real probability that the bill will pass, and if it passes, we want it better than it is at the moment. Consequently, we are not wasting time."

Ministers have ruled out using government debating time to enable further discussion of the amendments in the Lords, but have hinted they are prepared to explore other routes to make more time available.

According to the Hansard Society, a think tank, such options include additional sittings on Fridays, a time traditionally reserved to debate bills put forward by backbench MPs.

Other alternatives include using time that would normally be reserved for other subjects, or sitting for longer hours between Monday and Thursday, it added.

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

It was quite a contrast.

On Thursday, a US Pentagon delegation was in Kyiv. They were talking to President Zelensky about a draft plan to end the war in Ukraine.

The same day, on Russian state TV, President Putin was in military fatigues. He was talking to his army chiefs about fighting on.

"We have our tasks, our goals," the Kremlin leader declared. "The chief one is the unconditional achievement of the aims of the special military operation."

The Izvestia newspaper called President Putin's visit to a command post "a signal to America that he's prepared to negotiate on Ukraine, on Russia's terms."

Which brings us back to the peace plan.

The Kremlin claims it "hasn't received anything official" from Washington. But a 28-point proposal has been widely leaked and reported on - and widely interpreted as favouring Russia's peace terms.

What's more, the reported plan appeared after a visit to America by President Putin's envoy Kirill Dmitriev. He took part in three days of discussions in Miami with President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff.

According to drafts of the peace proposal widely available, Ukraine would cede to Russia parts of the Donbass still under Kyiv's control; the Ukrainian armed forces would be reduced in size and Ukraine would vow not to join Nato.

The Kremlin won't confirm the contents. But it's advising Kyiv to agree terms.

"The Russian military's effective work should convince Zelensky and his regime that it's better to strike a deal and do it now," President Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on a Kremlin conference call.

A peace proposal does not automatically mean peace.

What if there's no agreement?

Pro-Kremlin commentators insist that, deal or no deal, Russia will prevail.

"Everyone thought that the idea of a peace deal had sunk in a swamp," wrote Russian news outlet Moskovsky Komsomolets. "But suddenly, a rocket has shot out of this bog with a new, or rather an 'old new' peace plan, with something of the Alaska summit about it. It shot out like a jack in the box.

"How long and how far will this missile fly? Will it crash, sabotaged by Europe and Kyiv? Even if the launch is a false start, it's unlikely to change the general trend. The balance of power is shifting in Russia's favour."

But after nearly four years of war Russia is under pressure, too. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, not only has Russian's army suffered huge losses on the battlefield, but back home the economy is faltering. Russia's budget deficit is growing, revenues from oil and gas falling.

"Russia's industry is somewhere between stagnation and decline," declared the broadsheet Nezavisimaya Gazeta this week.

It's unclear, though, whether economic pressures will change President Putin's calculations and convince him that now is the moment to end his so-called special operation: even on terms that many believe benefit Moscow.

Many. But not everyone.

Some elements of the peace plan haven't gone down well in Russia. Some reports suggest that Ukraine could be offered security guarantees modelled on Nato's Article 5. That might commit Western allies to treat any future Russian attack on Ukraine as an attack on the transatlantic community as a whole and trigger a combined military response.

"This is, in effect, Ukraine in Nato," wrote Moskovsky Komsomolets, "only without the deployment of bases and weapons on its territory."

The full details of the peace plan have yet to be confirmed. We may be entering another period of intense diplomacy.

For now, though, Russia's war on Ukraine continues.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that Kyiv risks losing US support over a White House plan on how to end the war with Russia.

Addressing the nation on Friday, Zelensky said Ukraine "might face a very difficult choice: either losing dignity, or risk losing a key partner", adding that "today is one of the most difficult moments in our history".

The widely leaked US peace plan includes proposals that Kyiv had previously ruled out: ceding eastern areas it now controls, significantly cutting its army size, and pledging not to join Nato.

These provisions are seen as heavily slanted towards Russia, whose President Vladimir Putin said the plan could be a "basis" for peace settlement.

At Friday's meeting with his security cabinet, Putin said Moscow had received the plan, which had not been discussed with the Kremlin in detail.

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

In his 10-minute address in front of the presidential office in Kyiv, Zelensky warned that Ukraine would face "a lot of pressure... to weaken us, to make divide us", adding that "the enemy is not sleeping".

Urging Ukrainians to stay united, he stressed that the country's "national interest must be taken into account".

"We're not making loud statements," he went on, "we'll be calmly working with America and all the partners... offering alternatives" to the proposed peace plan.

Zelensky also said he had been reassured of continuous support during a phone call with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

After the talks, Starmer stressed that "the principle that Ukraine must determine its future under its sovereignty is a fundamental principle".

Separately, Zelensky said he had spoken "for almost an hour" with US Vice-President JD Vance and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, adding that Ukraine "always respected" President Donald Trump's efforts to end the war.

In Washington, Trump warned that Ukraine would lose more territory to Russia "in a short amount of time".

He said it was "appropriate" to give Ukraine until 27 November - Thanksgiving in the US - to agree to the peace deal, but added deadlines could be extended if things were "going well".

Washington has been pressing Kyiv to quickly accept the plan, and sent senior Pentagon officials to the Ukrainian capital on Thursday.

On Thursday, President Putin sounded determined to continue the war despite reported heavy Russian combat casualties.

"We have our tasks, our goals," the Kremlin leader, wearing a military uniform, told his army commanders. "The chief one is the unconditional achievement of the aims of the special military operation [full-scale war]."

The 28-point US peace plan emerged as Russia claims small territorial gains in south-eastern Ukraine, while Zelensky faces a domestic crisis implicating top officials in a $100m (£76m) corruption scandal.

The White House has pushed back on claims that Ukraine was frozen out of the drafting of the proposal, following meetings between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian counterpart Kirill Dmitriev.

An unnamed US official told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, that the plan was drawn up "immediately" following discussions with Ukraine's top security official Rustem Umerov, who agreed to the majority of it.

Umerov is said to have made several modifications before he presented it to Zelensky.

The leaked draft proposes Ukrainian troops' withdrawal from the part of the eastern Donetsk region that they currently control, and de facto Russian control of Donetsk, as well as the neighbouring Luhansk region and the southern Crimea peninsular annexed by Russia in 2014.

The plan also includes freezing the borders of Ukraine's southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions along the current battle lines. Both regions are partially occupied by Russia.

The US plan also limits Ukraine's military to 600,000 personnel, with European fighter jets stationed in neighbouring Poland.

Kyiv would receive "reliable security guarantees", the plan says, although no details have been given. The document says "it is expected" that Russia will not invade its neighbours and that Nato will not expand further.

The draft also suggests Russia will be "reintegrated into the global economy", through the lifting of sanctions and by inviting Russia to rejoin the G7 group of the world's most powerful countries - making it the G8 again.

Ukrainians both under and free of Russian occupation struck a defiant tone in reaction to news of the US proposal.

In Kyiv, the widow of a Ukrainian soldier told the BBC: "This is not a peace plan, it is a plan to continue the war."

Another person speaking from one of the occupied territories in Ukraine told the BBC: "I'm trying to keep my sanity here in the conditions of constant propaganda that Ukraine has forgotten us. I hope they will not sign this."

Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory and its troops have been making slow advances along the vast front line, despite reported heavy losses.

Kirill Dmitriev is a rare breed of Russian diplomat.

At 50 he is relatively young and he has a deep understanding of the US, having studied and worked there for several years.

He is also a man of commerce, as head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, and a good fit for his opposite number in the Trump administration, special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Dmitriev now finds himself under the spotlight over a draft peace plan that emerged after he spent three days with Witkoff in Miami.

His team has refused to comment on its proposals, which read like a Putin wishlist, requiring Ukraine to cede territory under its control and slash the size of its military.

Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky has been careful not to reject its terms, but says any deal must bring a "dignified peace, with terms that respect our independence, our sovereignty".

Putin's special envoy understands modern Ukraine better than most in Moscow. He was brought up in Ukraine, and a friend claims that as a 15-year-old Dmitriev took part in pro-democracy protests in Kyiv before the fall of the Soviet Union.

He has been a fixture of US-Russian diplomatic initiatives pretty much since the start of Trump's second presidency - and Steve Witkoff has been a regular counterpart.

"We are sure we are on the road to peace, and as peacemakers we need to make it happen," Dmitriev told a conference in Saudi Arabia in late October.

The pair appear to have first crossed paths in February 2025 when Putin's envoy played a role in securing the release of an American teacher from a Russian jail.

"There's a gentleman from Russia, his name is Kirill, and he had a lot to do with this. He was important. He was an important interlocutor bridging the two sides," Witkoff told reporters.

Days later, when US and Russian diplomats met in Saudi Arabia, in effect bringing an end to Russia's diplomatic isolation in the West, Dmitriev took part in talks on economic relations and Witkoff was there too.

Dmitriev's direct approach to Trump officials has not always paid off.

When Trump announced sanctions on Russia's top two oil firms last month, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent labelled him a "Russian propagandist" for suggesting it would mean higher US fuel prices at the pump.

Unlike the majority of Putin's entourage, the Russian leader's envoy is comfortable in a US TV studio. He is careful to praise Trump's diplomatic skills while giving Western viewers the Russian government narrative in their own language.

"I'm not a military guy… but the position of [the] Russian military is they only hit military targets," he told CNN's Jake Tapper recently, days after a kindergarten was bombed in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. "I'm just working to have dialogue and make sure that the conflict is ended as soon as possible."

Dmitriev certainly is not a military guy, he's a private investment specialist with an eye for a deal.

Witkoff may rate him, but in 2022 during Joe Biden's presidency, the US Treasury called him a "known Putin ally" and imposed sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) which he has run since 2011.

"While officially a sovereign wealth fund, RDIF is widely considered a slush fund for President Vladimir Putin and is emblematic of Russia's broader kleptocracy," it said.

Dmitriev's attitude to the Biden years is pretty clear: under Biden there was no attempt to understand the Russian position, he argues, while Trump's team stopped World War Three.

It is claimed that Dmitriev has accumulated a real estate fortune with his wife, TV presenter Natalia Popova.

Popova is a friend and colleague of Vladimir Putin's daughter, Katerina Tikhonova - and deputy head of Tikhonova's tech firm Innopraktika. Dmitriev is also widely seen as part of Tikhonova's circle.

His rise to the top in Moscow is a far cry from his childhood in Kyiv, as the son of two scientists. Dmitriev's father is a well known cell biologist in Ukraine and his mother a geneticist.

That scientific background may have influenced his move to use his Russian sovereign wealth fund to finance Russia's Covid vaccine Sputnik V.

Dmitriev is believed to have first met Russia's long-time leader at the start of his presidency in 2000, but he has not always agreed with his views.

While Putin saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century", a friend claims Dmitriev joined an anti-Soviet student protest in Kyiv at the age of 15.

His relationship with the US began the same year, in 1990, when he took part in a student exchange programme in New Hampshire, where a local newspaper quoted him highlighting Ukraine's national identity: "Ukraine had a long history as an independent nation before it became part of the Russian empire."

He later returned to the US as a college student and wrote a thesis on privatisation in Ukraine while at Stanford University. In his thesis proposal he suggested the research would "prepare me better for making a contribution to the reform process in Ukraine".

After earning an MBA at Harvard, he worked for McKinsey in Los Angeles, Prague and Moscow, and then joined the US-Russia Investment Fund, set up by the US to ease Russia's transition to a market economy.

Dmitriev appeared critical of Putin's crackdown on Russia's oligarchs in 2003 in a column for the Vedomosti business paper. "The world is shrewd enough to know the difference between following the letter of the law and using the law as a tool of influence," he wrote.

By 2007 he was back in Ukraine, in charge of investment fund Icon Private Equity, an investment fund with offices in Kyiv and Moscow.

Increasingly he lamented Ukraine's political "instability" and suggested Russia was better placed to respond to the global financial crisis.

He was a regular guest on TV talk shows and in 2010 he warned Ukraine would face an "economic Holodomor" if it pursued a policy of isolation from Russia: a reference to the Ukrainian famine of the1930s brought on by the policies of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

In 2011 he moved back to Russia to take charge of the newly-launched Russian Direct Investment Fund and remains there to this day.

His overtures to the Trump administration have not come out of the blue.

The Mueller report into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia during the 2016 US presidential election refers to Dmitriev meeting campaign supporters after the vote. But it was fromFebruary 2025 that contacts with the US were stepped up.

Much of his work has been on diplomacy, but he has always had an eye on commercial opportunity.

He proposed joint energy projects in the Arctic, and suggested partnering Russia's sovereign wealth fund with US companies in developing rare earth deposits.

He has also spoken of Russia offering Elon Musk "a small-sized nuclear power plant for a mission to Mars" and even an $8bn (£6bn) "Putin-Trump" rail tunnel linking their two countries beneath the Bering Strait.

Dmitriev's stock may be rising in Russia, but his reputation has taken a dive in Ukraine, where sanctions have been imposed on him for alleged crimes against Ukraine and Ukrainians.

A member of the BBC's board has resigned over what he says are "governance issues" at the top of the corporation.

Shumeet Banerji also said in a letter that he was "not consulted" about the events leading up to the departures of the director general, Tim Davie, and BBC News chief executive, Deborah Turness.

Banerji confirmed his resignation on Friday, the BBC said in a statement.

BBC News has approached Banerji for comment.

The BBC's two top executives resigned earlier in November as a result of the fallout over a Panorama episode that edited together parts of a 2021 speech by US President Donald Trump.

Since then, concerns have been raised in some quarters about the functionality of the BBC board, which is responsible for oversight and strategy of the corporation.

In blaming governance issues, Banerji appears to have made a direct criticism of chairman Samir Shah and other members of the board.

Banerji's resignation comes at a difficult time for the BBC, with Shah and board members Sir Robbie Gibb and Caroline Thomson due to give evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee of MPs on Monday afternoon.

Questions have already been raised in Parliament about political appointees on the BBC board (there are five including Shah and Gibb).

They will likely be asked about claims, first made in a leaked document, that the BBC has "systemic issues" relating to coverage around, for example, the Israel-Gaza conflict and coverage of sex and gender. That was rejected by Turness and Davie.

Written by Michael Prescott, who was previously an independent external advisor to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee, the document was published by the Telegraph newspaper and also flagged the Panorama edit.

The corporation has since acknowledged the edit gave "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" on the day of the riot at the US Capitol building on 6 January 2021.

Trump has threatened to sue over the programme, saying it defamed him. While the BBC has apologised, it has refused the president's demand for financial compensation.

A second MP has announced he is leaving Your Party, a new left-wing group set up by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Labour MP Zarah Sultana.

In a statement on social media, Iqbal Mohamed did not say why he was leaving but made reference to "false allegations and smears made against me".

The Dewsbury and Batley MP said British politics needed "a genuine, inclusive force for positive change" and expressed the hope that Your Party could fulfil that role.

Your Party has been approached for a comment.

Mohamed's departure comes a week after Blackburn MP Adnan Hussain said he would be "stepping away" from Your Party, citing a "toxic" culture towards "Muslim men".

Sultana announced in July that she was leaving Labour to set up a new party with Corbyn, saying it was time to challenge the "broken" Westminster system.

However since then the group has been mired in factional in-fighting including a row over the handling of £800,000 of donations.

Mohamed made reference to the internal tensions, saying in a statement: "The many false allegations and smears made against me and others, and reported as fact without evidence, have been surprising and disappointing.

"However, I am confident that my colleagues and I have acted professionally, patiently, and in good faith throughout."

He thanked those who had supported Your Party and wished them "success in their future endeavours".

He said he would continue working with colleagues in the Independent Alliance, a grouping in Parliament made up of Corbyn and four other independent pro-Gaza MPs who were elected for the first time in the 2024 general election.

Scotland fans have criticised Uefa after videos of supporters celebrating their team qualifying for the World Cup were removed from social media.

The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) received emails from the European football governing body stating it had shared footage showing TV coverage of the Scotland v Denmark game on X without permission.

Posts shared by the SFSA showed fans across the country celebrating Tuesday night's match, where Scotland secured a spot at the World Cup for the first time since 1998.

Many of the videos have been taken down due to copyright infringement and the SFSA's account was blocked.

SFSA co-founder Paul Goodwin questioned the fairness of the claim.

He said: "It is hard to believe that Uefa are so out of touch that they demanded that X take down images of joyous fans in bars in Glasgow, Stirling and Dundee where some of our members were celebrating a glorious evening for the nation.

"It really smacks of folk who have no idea about football, making decisions."

Tuesday's match was free-to-air on BBC Scotland and BBC Two, in Scotland. Rights differ elsewhere.

One of the videos removed showed a packed pub in Inverurie erupt when Scott McTominay scored with an overhead bicycle kick three minutes into the game.

Mr Goodwin added: "Yes, the game was on in the background but these clips were of fans watching the game that were legally being watched on the BBC and were an average of 40 seconds long.

"So its hardly us streaming a game to a worldwide audience."

The group received emails from lawyers on behalf of Uefa after posts had been flagged for breaching Uefa rules on match footage.

Mr Goodwin said he was "shocked" when the videos were deleted and the group's account was blocked.

"Our message to Uefa is maybe best summed up in the chant often directed to match officials, 'you don't know what you are doing'," he added.

Intellectual property rights

Scotland qualified for their first World Cup since 1998 with a memorable 4-2 win over Denmark at Hampden.

Goals from Scott McTominay, Lawrence Shankland, Kieran Tierney and Kenny McLean secured Scotland's place at the 2026 World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico.

As well as fan reactions, video edits of the goals, particularly McTominay's bicycle kick, have been widely shared on social media sites, including X as well as Instagram and TikTok.

Uefa frequently removes YouTube videos due to strict copyright enforcement.

The governing body for European football owns the broadcast rights to its matches and generally restricts the uploading of match footage by unofficial channels and fans.

According to Uefa rules, the governing body "is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights of the competition, including any current or future rights in all types of audio and visual material of the competition".

Uefa has been approached for comment.

The mother of Jay Slater, who died after going missing in Tenerife last summer, has stepped up her campaign for a new law to tackle online trolls.

Debbie Duncan, from Oswaldtwistle in Lancashire, is being backed by her local MP in calling for Jay's Law to prevent the online trolling of grieving families like hers.

The 19-year-old's disappearance sparked a massive manhunt and a host of conspiracy theories about his death after he attempted a 14-hour walk home the morning after a night out on the island.

"I'd like to see the social media companies take away all the misinformation to protect families like ours, especially when there has been a massive story in the media," Ms Duncan said.

A huge search was launched after Jay was reported missing on 18 June last year and his body was found by a mountain rescue team almost a month later in the steep and inaccessible Juan Lopez ravine.

An inquest concluded his death, from head injuries, was an accident after he lost his footing and fell in a ravine but the conspiracy theories continued online.

"Whilst we were still out there in Tenerife, the online world was just going crazy," Ms Duncan said.

"At the beginning it was all positive, sharing the awareness that Jay was missing, asking for information, but then it just became absolutely ridiculous.

"We were getting sent videos.

"They were sending photographs of Photoshopped images of Jay, making out he'd been tortured.

"It was just awful. I thought how can people do this? It was sick and it's never stopped."

'Most painful thing'

Ms Duncan said the family hoped a Channel 4 documentary about her son, The Disappearance of Jay Slater, "would help a lot of people understand the truth and the facts".

However, the conspiracy theories "just carried on and carried on", Ms Duncan said.

"People are still going online, going down rabbit holes," she said.

"It's just unbelievable - making out he was involved in some drug cartel. It's absolutely crazy."

In September, Ms Duncan launched an official Parliamentary petition calling for Jay's Law which was backed by Sarah Smith, her local MP for Hyndburn and Haslingden.

The two women are now working together to convene a cross-party meeting of MPs and ministers to discuss how Jay's Law can be brought forward.

"We've been to hell and back," Ms Duncan said.

"It's one thing losing a son. It's the most painful thing - but then to listen to all that and see all that's going on in the background... there needs to be something that can stop it."

Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.

It was quite a contrast.

On Thursday, a US Pentagon delegation was in Kyiv. They were talking to President Zelensky about a draft plan to end the war in Ukraine.

The same day, on Russian state TV, President Putin was in military fatigues. He was talking to his army chiefs about fighting on.

"We have our tasks, our goals," the Kremlin leader declared. "The chief one is the unconditional achievement of the aims of the special military operation."

The Izvestia newspaper called President Putin's visit to a command post "a signal to America that he's prepared to negotiate on Ukraine, on Russia's terms."

Which brings us back to the peace plan.

The Kremlin claims it "hasn't received anything official" from Washington. But a 28-point proposal has been widely leaked and reported on - and widely interpreted as favouring Russia's peace terms.

What's more, the reported plan appeared after a visit to America by President Putin's envoy Kirill Dmitriev. He took part in three days of discussions in Miami with President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff.

According to drafts of the peace proposal widely available, Ukraine would cede to Russia parts of the Donbass still under Kyiv's control; the Ukrainian armed forces would be reduced in size and Ukraine would vow not to join Nato.

The Kremlin won't confirm the contents. But it's advising Kyiv to agree terms.

"The Russian military's effective work should convince Zelensky and his regime that it's better to strike a deal and do it now," President Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on a Kremlin conference call.

A peace proposal does not automatically mean peace.

What if there's no agreement?

Pro-Kremlin commentators insist that, deal or no deal, Russia will prevail.

"Everyone thought that the idea of a peace deal had sunk in a swamp," wrote Russian news outlet Moskovsky Komsomolets. "But suddenly, a rocket has shot out of this bog with a new, or rather an 'old new' peace plan, with something of the Alaska summit about it. It shot out like a jack in the box.

"How long and how far will this missile fly? Will it crash, sabotaged by Europe and Kyiv? Even if the launch is a false start, it's unlikely to change the general trend. The balance of power is shifting in Russia's favour."

But after nearly four years of war Russia is under pressure, too. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, not only has Russian's army suffered huge losses on the battlefield, but back home the economy is faltering. Russia's budget deficit is growing, revenues from oil and gas falling.

"Russia's industry is somewhere between stagnation and decline," declared the broadsheet Nezavisimaya Gazeta this week.

It's unclear, though, whether economic pressures will change President Putin's calculations and convince him that now is the moment to end his so-called special operation: even on terms that many believe benefit Moscow.

Many. But not everyone.

Some elements of the peace plan haven't gone down well in Russia. Some reports suggest that Ukraine could be offered security guarantees modelled on Nato's Article 5. That might commit Western allies to treat any future Russian attack on Ukraine as an attack on the transatlantic community as a whole and trigger a combined military response.

"This is, in effect, Ukraine in Nato," wrote Moskovsky Komsomolets, "only without the deployment of bases and weapons on its territory."

The full details of the peace plan have yet to be confirmed. We may be entering another period of intense diplomacy.

For now, though, Russia's war on Ukraine continues.

The draft US-Russia peace plan has been widely leaked and we now know that it proposes to hand over those areas of Ukraine's industrial eastern Donbas region still under Ukrainian control to the de facto control of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Latest versions of the text also call for Ukraine to cut the size of its armed forces to 600,000 people.

But what else is known about the text and who stands to benefit from it most?

What are the key points?

There are 28 key points and there are several on the face of it that could be acceptable to Ukraine. Others come across as vague and imprecise.

Ukraine's sovereignty would be "confirmed" and there would be a "total and complete comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Russia, Ukraine and Europe", with robust or reliable "security guarantees" for Kyiv and a demand for snap elections in 100 days.

If Russia were to invade Ukraine a "robust co-ordinated military response" is proposed along with a restoration of sanctions and a scrapping of the deal.

Although elections are impossible in Ukraine as there is martial law in place, they could theoretically be held if a peace deal is signed.

But on security guarantees, there is no detail on who would provide them and how robust they might be. This falls well short of a Nato-style Article Five commitment to treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on all. Kyiv would want more than a vague promise if it were to sign up.

Handover of Ukraine's territory and cut in armed forces

Among the most contentious proposals are Ukraine handing over its own unoccupied territory and cutting the size of its armed forces.

"Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone."

Ceding territory where at least a quarter of a million Ukrainians live - the Donetsk "fortress belt" cities of Slovyansk, Kramatorsk and Druzhkivka - will not be acceptable to most Ukrainians. Russia has spent well over a year trying to capture the town of Pokrovsk - Ukraine is unlikely to hand over such important strategic hubs without a fight.

"The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel."

Ukraine's military was estimated last January at 880,000 active personnel, up from 250,000 at the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

While 600,000 might seem a potentially acceptable number in peacetime, that kind of limitation would infringe on Ukrainian sovereignty. It might also be too big a number for Russia to accept.

"Our red lines are clear and unwavering," Ukrainian representative Khrystyna Hayovyshyn told the UN security Council: "There will never be any recognition formal or otherwise of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as Russian. Ukraine will not accept any limits on its rights to self defence or on the size or capabilities of our armed forces."

The draft also proposes that "Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States".

In other words Ukraine and other countries would not need to recognise Russian control by law. That could enable Kyiv to accept such phrasing, as it would not impinge on Ukraine's constitution that says its borders are " indivisible and inviolable".

Elsewhere, in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzia, the front lines would be frozen and Russia would relinquish areas it has occupied in other areas.

Ukraine's future - with EU but not Nato

The draft proposes significant commitments on Ukraine's strategic future:

"Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join Nato and Nato agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future."

"Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will get short-term preferred market access to the European market while this issue is being evaluated."

There is little chance of Ukraine joining Nato any time soon and Russia has in recent months softened its stance on Ukraine's candidacy for EU membership. The document appears to offer Kyiv access to EU markets while ignoring the views of 27 European countries.

Joining both the EU and Nato are part of Ukraine's constitution and another of Khrystyna Hayovyshyn's red lines at the UN on Thursday was: "Nor will we tolerate any infringement on our sovereignty including our sovereign right to choose the alliances we want to join."

Other draft proposals are that Nato agrees not to station troops in Ukraine and that European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland. Kyiv would also have to commit to being a "non-nuclear state".

That appears to reject the West's Coalition of the Willing's plans led by the UK and France to help police any future deal.

Bringing Russia back from isolation

Several points refer to Russia being brought back from isolation with "Russia to be re-integrated into the global economy" and invited back into the G8 group of powers.

That seems a long way off for now, with Putin under an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Russia was thrown out of the G7 after it seized and then annexed Crimea in 2014 and Trump tried to bring Putin back into the fold six years later.

If the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan were reluctant before the full-scale invasion, there's even less chance of that happening now.

What about Russia's frozen assets?

The draft proposes that $100bn of frozen Russian assets should be invested "in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine", with the US receiving 50% of the profits and Europe adding $100bn in investment for reconstruction.

This is reminiscent of the US minerals deal with Ukraine earlier this year, extracting an American price for involvement, and it also leaves the European Union with nothing but hefty bills.

The sums it mentions may not be sufficient, either: earlier this year the total cost of reconstruction in Ukraine was put at $524bn (€506bn).

Some €200bn in Russia frozen assets are largely held by Euroclear in Belgium, and the European Union is currently working on a plan to use the money to fund Kyiv financially and militarily.

The rest of those frozen assets would go to a "US-Russian investment vehicle", under the draft, so Russia would see some of its money come back, but again there would be a financial benefit for the US.

What is not in the plan?

Several commentators have pointed out that the plan does not require weapons limitations on Ukraine's military or its arms industry, even though there is a provision saying: If Ukraine fires a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg then the security guarantee will be considered null and void.

But it does not place an restriction on the long-range weapons Ukraine has been developing - such as its Flamingo and Long Neptune missiles.

Is this a definitive peace plan?

We know the US is keen to press ahead fast under an "aggressive timeline" with this draft, with reports suggesting Ukraine has until Thanksgiving late next week to agree to it.

Equally US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was involved in drafting it, described it as "a list of potential ideas for ending this war", and German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has made clear he does not see the 28 points as a definitive plan, having spoken to the other key US official involved, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff.

In some respects the draft document seems like work in progress, with some details that were leaked to US websites on Thursday no longer apparent.

The European Union said on Friday morning it had not officially seen the plan yet, and the Russian foreign ministry said the same.

Is the draft a Putin wishlist?

Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev is known to have spent as long as three days with Witkoff discussing this plan, raising suggestions of a stitched-up deal to suit Moscow. But Russia's response has so far been cautious and it says it has not even seen the plan.

The handover of Ukrainian territory to Russia, even in a demilitarised zone, is the biggest sign of a slant towards Russia's narrative, but freezing the front lines in the south could prove difficult for the Kremlin which has annexed both Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in its constitution.

One of the proposals is for the lifting of sanctions to be "agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis" - which Moscow will probably see as far too slow.

However, a plan for a "full amnesty" for all parties will go down well in Moscow and very badly in Kyiv and European capitals.

Commentators have pointed out that while there do appear to be major concessions to Putin, some of the requirements for Nato might be too vague for Kremlin tastes.

Russia has also consistently demanded that a peace plan would need to eliminate what it sees as "the root causes" of the war. One of those root causes is halting Nato expansion in Eastern Europe, which the draft appears to deal with.

Some of the other 28 points of the draft also a nod to Russia's claims of discrimination of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population without explicitly endorsing them.

One point is explicit but even-handed: "Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education."

Another apparent attempt to be even-handed comes from a proposal to distribute electricity generated by the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant - the biggest in Europe - "equally between Russia and Ukraine".

The former leader of Reform UK in Wales has been sentenced to 10-and-a-half years in prison after admitting taking bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.

Nathan Gill, 52, from Llangefni, Anglesey, received about £40,000 in total for helping pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

He was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) when he accepted money from Oleg Voloshyn, 44, a man once described by the US government as a "pawn" of Russian secret services.

At the Old Bailey, Judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said Gill had abused his position and eroded "public confidence in democracy".

Voloshyn was acting on behalf of "close friend" Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, 71, who was the source of both the requests and the cash.

The Met Police said investigations into "whether any other individuals have committed offences" are continuing.

Cdr Dominic Murphy, head of the Met Police's counter-terrorism team, said Gill was an "extraordinarily willing participant" in the bribery, describing his actions as a "threat to national security".

He said the case formed part of a "breadth of activity" by Russia, including incidents such as the Salisbury poisonings in 2018 and an arson attack in London in 2024.

"These are the types of things that we're seeing Russia commit across Europe - and it's why our international relations, particularly in counter-terrorism policing, are so important to how we can confront Russia and make sure we disrupt their activity."

Gill, who was an MEP from 2014 to 2020 - initially for UKIP and then the Brexit Party - pleaded guilty to eight charges of bribery at an earlier hearing in March.

In late 2018 and early 2019, he gave TV interviews on 112 Ukraine - one of two TV channels linked to Medvedchuk that were then under threat of being closed by the Ukrainian government.

Gill was bribed to defend the two channels - 112 Ukraine and NewsOne - in the European Parliament, and to speak in support of Medvedchuk, then a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who faced criminal proceedings for high treason.

Voloshyn, the court heard, had links to those channels; his wife Nadia Borodi was also a presenter on 112.

Both channels were taken off air in 2021.

Voloshyn also tasked Gill with finding other MEPs to speak to 112, and gave him talking points to pass on to them.

The court heard Gill mainly enlisted MEPs from the UK but also some from Germany and France. No case was presented that these MEPs knew Gill was being bribed.

In texts obtained by police, Voloshyn said: "If you get three or four" referring to MEPs "...I will request and secure at least 5K for you".

Gill responded: "I shall do my best."

Cdr Murphy said there was no evidence Gill was paying others.

He said the "tone of the conversation" was Gill trying to "find people who could speak openly in support of the Russian narrative in Ukraine".

Gill also hosted Medvedchuk at the European Parliament's base in Strasbourg to promote a so-called "peace plan" for the Donbas region - an event that was praised by Vladimir Putin the following day on Russian TV.

Voloshyn asked Gill to arrange for colleagues from the Brexit Party to attend, the court heard.

Prosecution barrister Mark Heywood KC said Voloshyn asked Gill to book a room. Gill told them he could "drag a few in".

Voloshyn promised he would be fairly rewarded, saying: "I already have a small sack of paper gifts for you".

In one set of messages, Voloshyn offered to bring $13,000 USD to him, as well as €4,000 for the peace plan.

By December 2018, Mr Heywood said messages indicated there was already a "close relationship between the two men".

In her sentencing remarks at the Old Bailey, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said there was "scant personal mitigation".

"Your misconduct has ramifications far beyond personal honour," she said.

"The enlisting of fellow representatives into this activity compounds the wrongdoing, undermining the mutual trust essential to the proper functioning of democratic institutions.

"The corrosive damage to public life caused by such actions is enduring."

Police began investigating Gill after tip-offs from their intelligence sources – including the FBI, who found messages to Gill on Voloshyn's phone when he travelled to the US in 2021.

Officers were on the way to search Gill's house on Anglesey, north Wales, on 13 September 2021 when they learned he had already left for Manchester Airport, in order to fly to Russia to attend a conference and observe elections.

When police became aware Gill was about to leave the country, the Met had him stopped at the border under counter-terrorism laws.

Gill was detained at the airport and his phone was searched, and found to contain messages to Voloshyn.

Voloshyn had offered Gill bribes on eight separate occasions - to make statements in the European Parliament, to appear on pro-Russian Ukrainian TV channels, and to organise other MEPs to give statements to these channels.

He used innuendoes to refer to money, on one occasion messaging Gill: "I've received all promised Xmas gifts and requested five more postcards for your kind help next week during the debate."

Voloshyn provided scripts and instructions, directing Gill to speak up on behalf of 112 Ukraine and NewsOne.

"The budget and project is confirmed by V," he told Gill on 4 December 2018, referencing Viktor Medvedchuk, adding "V always delivers if he promises."

His message continued: "V was very excited when I told him of this option. And he really counts on it to happen."

Police searching Gill's house found €5,000 and $5,000 in cash.The court heard the total he received was likely at least £30,000.

The earliest offence Gill pleaded guilty to dates to the same day he left UKIP in 2018.

He continued taking bribes after joining Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party.

Later, he led the party into the 2021 Senedd election after it rebranded as Reform UK.

In mitigation, defence barrister Philip Wright told the court his actions may seem "unfathomable" given the "laudable and noble" features of his political life.

"He recognises, and did by his guilty pleas, the enormity of what he has done and the betrayal of the trust placed in him and on his behalf by others to behave with integrity, and that he has let them and himself down," Mr Wright said.

A Reform spokesperson said Nigel Farage was "deeply shocked and angered" by Gill's actions, stating the Reform leader did not have any knowledge of them at the time.

Police said there was no link to Nigel Farage in their investigation.

Gill also represented North Wales in the Welsh Parliament, then known as the National Assembly for Wales, from 2016 to 2017. Police found no evidence to suggest criminal activity linked to this period.

In addition to the eight charges to which he pleaded guilty, he pleaded not guilty to one charge, of conspiracy to commit bribery.

"Nathan Gill has absolutely been held to account for his activity," said Cdr Murphy.

"That should send a strong message to any elected official or anyone in an official capacity who is asked to act on behalf of another government and paid money to do so."

Additional reporting by Daniel Davies.

A man who lay in wait for five hours at a cemetery in order to kill his ex-wife has been jailed for a minimum of 27 years and 230 days.

Martin Suter, 68, previously pleaded guilty to murdering 71-year-old Ann Blackwood at Crofton Cemetery in Stubbington, Hampshire, in July 2023.

Suter, of Lee-on-the-Solent, repeatedly stabbed her by their son's grave on what would have been his 36th birthday, Portsmouth Crown Court was told.

Imposing a life sentence, Judge Michael Bowes KC told Suter: "You brutally murdered Ann Blackwood in the most cruel and agonising way you could."

Warning: The following report contains distressing details

Suter waited for about five hours at the cemetery on 24 July before attacking Ms Blackwood, from Lee-on-the-Solent, when she arrived on a bicycle.

Robert O'Sullivan KC, prosecuting, said: "The defendant stabbed her in the back with a kitchen knife and, the blade having broken off with the first blow, he repeatedly stabbed her in the neck with a pair of scissors that she had brought with her to cut the flowers she had planned to put on her son's grave."

Suter then called 999 from the graveside to confess, blaming Ms Blackwood for their son's suicide and saying his life had been ruined by her.

Members of the public saw the victim on the ground and asked if they could help, the court heard.

Mr Suter replied: "No, she's dead - I killed her. I called the police. It's been 40 years. I couldn't take it any more."

The couple's teenage son Christopher died in 2003 at the age of 15 and the couple divorced the following year, the court heard.

In a victim personal statement, the victim's brother, John Blackwood, said she was the "hub of the family... affable, inoffensive" and had many friends.

The statement, read by a barrister, continued: "Her shocking and brutal death has sorely impacted many people. The family hub has been splintered in the most grotesque manner possible."

A further victim statement from friend Catherine Jay paid tribute to a "loyal friend, devoted mother and vibrant presence".

On 11 May 2023, about two months before the murder, the defendant pleaded guilty in a separate case to indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 14.

Judge Bowes imposed a four-month sentence for that offence and an additional 27 years and 109 days for murder.

If you have been affected by any issues in this report, help and support is available at BBC Action Line.

Follow BBC South on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram. Send your story ideas to south.newsonline@bbc.co.uk or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2240.

Scotland fans have criticised Uefa after videos of supporters celebrating their team qualifying for the World Cup were removed from social media.

The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) received emails from the European football governing body stating it had shared footage showing TV coverage of the Scotland v Denmark game on X without permission.

Posts shared by the SFSA showed fans across the country celebrating Tuesday night's match, where Scotland secured a spot at the World Cup for the first time since 1998.

Many of the videos have been taken down due to copyright infringement and the SFSA's account was blocked.

SFSA co-founder Paul Goodwin questioned the fairness of the claim.

He said: "It is hard to believe that Uefa are so out of touch that they demanded that X take down images of joyous fans in bars in Glasgow, Stirling and Dundee where some of our members were celebrating a glorious evening for the nation.

"It really smacks of folk who have no idea about football, making decisions."

Tuesday's match was free-to-air on BBC Scotland and BBC Two, in Scotland. Rights differ elsewhere.

One of the videos removed showed a packed pub in Inverurie erupt when Scott McTominay scored with an overhead bicycle kick three minutes into the game.

Mr Goodwin added: "Yes, the game was on in the background but these clips were of fans watching the game that were legally being watched on the BBC and were an average of 40 seconds long.

"So its hardly us streaming a game to a worldwide audience."

The group received emails from lawyers on behalf of Uefa after posts had been flagged for breaching Uefa rules on match footage.

Mr Goodwin said he was "shocked" when the videos were deleted and the group's account was blocked.

"Our message to Uefa is maybe best summed up in the chant often directed to match officials, 'you don't know what you are doing'," he added.

Intellectual property rights

Scotland qualified for their first World Cup since 1998 with a memorable 4-2 win over Denmark at Hampden.

Goals from Scott McTominay, Lawrence Shankland, Kieran Tierney and Kenny McLean secured Scotland's place at the 2026 World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico.

As well as fan reactions, video edits of the goals, particularly McTominay's bicycle kick, have been widely shared on social media sites, including X as well as Instagram and TikTok.

Uefa frequently removes YouTube videos due to strict copyright enforcement.

The governing body for European football owns the broadcast rights to its matches and generally restricts the uploading of match footage by unofficial channels and fans.

According to Uefa rules, the governing body "is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights of the competition, including any current or future rights in all types of audio and visual material of the competition".

Uefa has been approached for comment.

South African women's rights groups are calling for nationwide protests to demand that gender-based violence (GBV) be declared a national disaster in a country where attacks on women have become commonplace.

The campaign began with a viral social media movement and will culminate in a nationwide "shutdown" on Friday, ahead of the G20 Summit in Johannesburg.

Celebrities, citizens and nations have shown their solidarity by changing their social media profile pictures to purple – a colour often linked to GBV awareness.

South Africa experiences some of the world's highest levels of GBV, with the rate at which women are killed five times higher than the global average, according to UN Women.

Between January and March this year, 137 women were murdered and more than 1,000 raped, according to South African crime statistics.

Warning: This report contains descriptions of sexual assault

On Friday, women are being urged to refrain from going to work or school, "withdraw from the economy for one day", and lie down for 15 minutes at 12:00 local time (10:00 GMT) in honour of the women murdered in the country.

They are also being urged to wear black as a sign of "mourning and resistance".

The protest, dubbed the G20 Women's Shutdown, has been organised by Women for Change, which has also been spearheading the online campaign.

There has also been an online petition, signed by over one million people, calling for the government to take an even tougher stance against the scourge.

The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) has rejected the calls to declare GBV a national disaster, saying it doesn't fall within the legal requirements.

On Thursday, President Cyril Ramaphosa told the G20 Social Summit that South Africa had "declared gender-based violence and femicide a national crisis" in 2019.

However, activists say that little has changed and they want the government to take more action.

Women for Change spokesperson Cameron Kasambala lamented the enactment of "so many beautiful acts and legislations" over the years to try and tackle the issue, which are followed by "lack of implementation and transparency" on the government's part.

"We've integrated violence… into our culture [and] into our social norms," she told the BBC.

"Once the government truly reacts to this issue, I feel like we'll already be able to see a reaction on the ground. Because they set the precedent and the tone for how the country responds," she said.

Grammy-award winning singer Tyla is among the thousands of celebrities and citizens who have rallied behind the call and changed their social media profiles. Some have gone further, posting pictures of purple hearts, nail polish and even clothing in what has since been dubbed the "purple movement".

A South African professor who asked to remain anonymous told the BBC she had taken leave so she could travel to Johannesburg from Free State province to take part in the silent protest.

It's important for her because she said she had second thoughts about simple things like jogging and hopes that the protest will "slow the scourge" of GBV.

However, some women have faced a backlash from employers for wanting to participate in the protest. One product designer who works for a major cooperation said they were strongly advised against taking part.

Some women who feel the government is not doing enough have taken matters into their own hands.

Lynette Oxeley founded Girls on Fire to help women protect themselves through gun ownership. It is legal to own a firearm in South Africa for self-defence if a person has a valid licence.

Most of the women in her group have been raped, attacked, robbed, or experienced some level of violence.

Prudence joined the group after she was raped in 2022.

"I said: 'No'. I screamed, I cried but he didn't take no for an answer," she told the BBC.

Trying to find justice was an "uphill battle" as her case was withdrawn because her rape kit - the DNA they take after the crime - was lost.

It isn't a "police problem, it is a nation problem," she said.

Although the women are trained to shoot firearms, Ms Oxeley said using a gun was a "last resort".

"It's not about actually defending yourself with a firearm. I want ladies to change what they think about themselves. Stop being silent," she said.

"Even if you do not win the fight, at least you are fighting back."

More about South Africa from the BBC:

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Typical gas and electricity bills will rise slightly in January, after the energy regulator outlined its next price cap.

The energy price cap sets the maximum amount customers can be charged for each unit of gas and electricity, but actual bills depend on the amount used.

In October, Chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC that her November Budget would set out measures to tackle "cost of living challenges" including energy bills, after official figures showed the level of customer debt had soared to record levels.

What is the energy price cap and how is it changing?

The energy price cap covers around 19 million households in England, Wales and Scotland and is set every three months by the energy regulator Ofgem.

It fixes the maximum price that can be charged for each unit of energy on a standard - or default - variable tariff for a typical dual-fuel household which pays by direct debit.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2026, the annual bill for a dual-fuel direct debit household using a typical amount of energy is £1,758, up £3 a year from the previous cap which applied between October and December.

During the three-month period, gas prices are capped at 5.93p per kilowatt hour (kWh) and electricity at 27.69p per kWh.

The cap does not apply in Northern Ireland, which has its own energy market.

Cornwall Insight - a consultancy whose predictions are widely respected - thinks the annual bill for a typical household will rise by about £75 on 1 April, when the subsequent cap takes effect.

What is a typical household?

Your energy bill depends on the overall amount of gas and electricity you use, and how you pay for it.

The type of property you live in, how energy efficient it is, how many people live there and the weather all make a difference.

The Ofgem cap is based on a "typical household" using 11,500 kWh of gas and 2,700 kWh of electricity a year with a single bill for gas and electricity, settled by direct debit.

The vast majority of people pay their bill this way to help spread payments across the year. Those who pay every three months by cash or cheque are charged more.

Should I take a meter reading when the energy cap changes?

Submitting a meter reading when the cap changes means you are not charged for estimated usage at the wrong rate.

This is especially important when prices go up.

Customers with working smart meters do not need to submit a reading as their bill is calculated automatically.

What is happening to prepayment customers?

About six million households have prepayment meters, according to the latest Ofgem figures.

Prepayment customers were previously charged more than those who settle their bill by direct debit, but now pay slightly less.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2026, the typical annual bill for prepayment customers is £1,711.

Many pre-payment meters have been in place for years, but some were installed more recently after customers struggled to pay higher bills.

Rules introduced in November 2023 mean suppliers must give customers more opportunity to clear their debts before switching them to a meter. They cannot be installed at all in certain households.

Can I fix my energy prices?

Fixed-price deals are not affected by the energy price cap, which changes every three months and can rise and fall.

They offer certainty for a set period - often a year, or longer - but if energy prices drop when you are on the deal, you could be stuck at a higher price. You may also have to pay a penalty to leave a fixed deal early if you change your mind.

Ofgem, the energy regulator, says customers who want the security of knowing what their bill will be should consider moving to a fixed deal. However, it says they should make sure they understand all the costs.

Martin Lewis, founder of Money Saving Expert, recommends checking whole-of-market energy price comparison sites to help find the best deal.

What are standing charges and how are they changing?

Ofgem also controls standing charges, which are a fixed daily fee to cover the costs of connecting households to gas and electricity supplies. These vary slightly by region.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2026, standing charges will typically be 55.75p a day for electricity and 35.09p a day for gas.

Campaigners have long argued that standing charges are unfair because they make up a bigger proportion of the bill of low energy users.

In response, Ofgem said that by the end of January 2026, it wants all energy firms to offer at least one tariff that has a low standing charge but higher cost per unit of energy.

The regulator said this would give some customers more choice and control, but acknowledged it would not be suitable for everyone.

Charities, campaigners and the suppliers' trade body criticised the proposal for just shifting the cost from one part of the bill to another rather than cutting it.

What help can I get with energy bills?

Figures from Ofgem show the level of energy debt and arrears in England, Wales and Scotland between April and June 2025 was £750m higher than in the same period in 2024.

The data also showed that more than one million households had no arrangement to repay their debt, another record high.

Suppliers must offer customers affordable payment plans or repayment holidays if necessary. Most also offer hardship grants.

Under plans Ofgem hopes to introduce in early 2026, nearly 200,000 people on benefits could have their debts to their energy supplier cancelled - as long as they have made some effort to pay what is owed.

The scheme could see up to £500m knocked off the £4.4bn currently owed to suppliers. But covering the cost will require an extra £5 being added to everyone's gas and electricity bill.

A number of existing government schemes also help people on low incomes with their energy bills.

The Household Support Fund, which was introduced in September 2021 to help vulnerable customers, has been extended until March 2026.

The Warm Home Discount scheme is also being overhauled. From winter 2025, anyone on means-tested benefits in Great Britain will get £150 taken off their bills, no matter what size of property they live in. The discount will be applied automatically for people in England or Wales and some in Scotland. However, those on a low income in Scotland will need to apply via their energy supplier. Letters are being sent to people with information on the discount.

The Fuel Direct Scheme lets people repay an energy debt directly from their benefit payments.

About nine million pensioners will also get the Winter Fuel Payment in 2025/2026, worth £200 or £300, after a government U-turn over eligibility.

• Ofgem: Help with bills

More on this story

• Uneasy, unnerved, un-Smith - Australian great falters in spotlight

  Published
  3 hours ago

  

• 'As good as I've seen' - Vaughan hails England attack

  Published
  4 hours ago

  

• Get cricket news sent straight to your phone

  Published
  16 August