More on this story

• Follow your club with BBC Sport

  Published
  2 days ago

  

• Listen to the latest Football Daily podcast

• Get football news sent straight to your phone

  Published
  16 August

  

Virginia Giuffre says she feared she might "die a sex slave" at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and his circle, her posthumous memoir reveals.

The BBC has obtained a full copy of Nobody's Girl, written by the prominent accuser of convicted sex offender Epstein ahead of its publication on Tuesday, almost six months after she took her own life.

In the memoir, Ms Giuffre also says she had sex with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions, including once with Epstein and approximately eight other young women.

Prince Andrew, who reached a financial settlement with Ms Giuffre in 2022, has always denied any wrongdoing.

The memoir, which the BBC bought from a book store in central London days before its official release date, paints a picture of a web of rich and powerful people abusing young women.

At the centre of the abuse was Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence on sex-trafficking charges.

Ms Giuffre says that even decades later, she remembers how much she feared them both.

Much of the book makes for extremely harrowing reading, as Ms Giuffre details the sadistic abuse that Epstein put her through.

She says Epstein subjected her to sadomasochistic sex which caused her "so much pain that I prayed I would black out".

On Friday, Prince Andrew announced that he was voluntarily deciding not to use his titles and giving up membership of the Order of the Garter - the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain.

He will no longer use his Duke of York title, an honour received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.

In his statement, he said: "I vigorously deny the accusations against me."

However the new book, written by Ms Giuffre and ghostwriter Amy Wallace, causes further embarrassment for the prince.

In the memoir, Ms Giuffre says she first met Prince Andrew in March 2001.

She writes that Maxwell woke her up and told her it was going to be a "special day" and that "just like Cinderella" she was going to meet a "handsome prince".

She says that when she met Prince Andrew later that day, Maxwell told him to guess her age.

The prince, who was then 41, "guessed correctly: seventeen", Ms Giuffre said. "My daughters are just a little younger than you," she recalls him saying.

That night, she says she attended London's Tramp nightclub with Prince Andrew, Epstein and Maxwell, where she says the prince "sweated profusely".

In a car on the way back to Maxwell's house afterwards, Ms Giuffre writes that Maxwell told her: "When we get home, you are to do for him what you do for Jeffrey."

She wrote that back at the house they had sex.

"He was friendly enough, but still entitled - as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright," she says.

"The next morning, it was clear that Maxwell had conferred with her royal chum because she told me: 'You did well. The prince had fun.'"

Ms Giuffre writes that she "didn't feel so great", adding: "Soon, Epstein would give me $15,000 for servicing the man the tabloids called 'Randy Andy' - a lot of money."

Ms Giuffre claims she had sex for a second time with the prince around a month later at Epstein's townhouse in New York.

She says the third occasion was on Epstein's island as part of what Ms Giuffre called "an orgy".

She writes that she said in a sworn declaration in 2015 that she was "around 18".

"Epstein, Andy, and approximately eight other young girls and I had sex together," she says.

"The other girls all appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English.

"Epstein laughed about how they couldn't really communicate, saying they are the easiest girls to get along with."

Later in the book, Ms Giuffre touches on her 2022 out-of-court settlement with Prince Andrew after she brought a civil case against him.

"I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured his mother's Platinum Jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been," she writes.

While Ms Giuffre's alleged interactions with Prince Andrew have been widely reported by the British press, the book's content is wider in scope - littered with sinister details of Epstein's sex trafficking.

The girls were required to look "childlike", Ms Giuffre says, and her childhood eating disorder was "only encouraged" under Epstein's roof.

"In my years with them, they lent me out to scores of wealthy, powerful people," she writes.

"I was habitually used and humiliated - and in some instances, choked, beaten, and bloodied.

"I believed that I might die a sex slave."

Epstein was convicted in Florida in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a person under the age of 18. He died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

On Sunday, the Metropolitan Police said it was "actively" looking into media reports that Prince Andrew tried to obtain personal information about Ms Giuffre through his police protection officer (PPO).

According to the Mail on Sunday, the prince asked the officer to investigate Ms Giuffre just before the newspaper published a photo in February 2011 of her first meeting with the prince.

A royal source told the BBC there are currently no plans for the removal of the prince title that Andrew was born with.

"The headlines are taking a lot of oxygen out of the royal room," they added, referring to press about Prince Andrew diverting attention away from King Charles's engagements.

In 2019, the prince repeatedly told BBC Newsnight that he did not remember meeting Ms Giuffre "at all" and that they "never had any sort of sexual contact."

Buckingham Palace has not commented.

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

New vocational courses called V-levels will be rolled out for 16-year-olds under government plans to simplify a "confusing landscape" of qualifications in England.

They are set to replace Level 3 BTecs and other post-16 technical qualifications.

Ministers also plan to reduce the number of teenagers resitting maths and English GCSEs by introducing an alternative qualification.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association warned that V-levels may not fill the gap left by BTecs.

Ministers are expected to lay out proposals for higher education funding, including university tuition fees, on Monday afternoon.

The government has launched a consultation on its V-level plans, which form part of its post-16 education and skills white paper.

They come after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stressed the importance of vocational training, announcing a target for two-thirds of young people to go to university or study a technical qualification.

Lola Marshall, 17, hopes to do an apprenticeship after her health and social care extended diploma at Leeds City College, and said there wasn't enough discussion about vocational routes at school.

"Everyone always talked about university and no one ever really helped me decide whether I wanted to do university or an apprenticeship," she said.

It is not yet clear when V-levels will be introduced, how they will be rolled out, or which subjects will be on offer - although the Department for Education (DfE) gave craft and design and media, broadcast and production as examples.

Skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith said V-levels aimed to simplify options for students.

"There are over 900 courses at the moment that young people have the choice of, and it's confusing," she said.

"[V-levels] will build on what's good about BTecs and other alternative qualifications - the ability to be able to work practically, the concentration on things that are going to lead to employment."

Students will still be able to study A-levels or T-levels after their GCSEs, or start an apprenticeship.

Ministers expect many will want to mix and match between A-levels and V-levels.

T-levels, introduced in 2020, already offer a technical route for students, but the initial findings of a government-commissioned review said they shouldn't be the only option, partly because of their high entry requirements.

Students study one T-level geared towards a specific occupation, whereas they might study three A-levels in different subjects.

Baroness Smith said T-levels therefore suited students who "really know that's what [they] want to do", while V-levels would be better for those who were less sure.

Plans to scrap BTecs have been under way for a few years, and campaigners have stressed the importance of students having an alternative to A-levels and T-levels.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said students must be able to enrol on BTecs and other courses for the next two years.

"While the detail has yet to be established, there is a risk that the new V-levels will not come close to filling the gap that will be left by the removal of applied general qualifications," he said.

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said V-levels might bring more "clarity and certainty" to further education.

"We've seen before lots of attempts to raise the profile of vocational and technical learning – we've got to hope this time we get it right as a nation," he said.

Baroness Smith also said a new qualification would be introduced as an alternative to GCSE resits, helping students who "too often have been on this demoralising roundabout of taking exams and failing them".

In England, pupils who don't get at least a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths have to continue studying for it alongside their next course, and are expected to resit.

However, the resit pass rate is low and the policy has proved controversial.

The government said offering an alternative would "break down barriers to opportunity", because white working class pupils were twice as likely to need to resit than their better-off classmates.

Its white paper will also propose that teenagers are offered a choice of two "pathways" - one focused on study and one on work - which will set out which qualifications they'll need to achieve their goals.

Ministers are also due to set out plans for the funding of higher education in England, including setting university tuition fees.

Universities have expressed growing concerns about funding pressures after years of frozen tuition fees, with more than four in 10 universities in England believed to be in a financial deficit.

They say income from fees has failed to match rising costs, and there have been fewer international students - who pay higher rates - coming in to help make up the financial shortfall.

Prof Shearer West, vice chancellor of the University of Leeds, welcomed the fact that domestic tuition fees in England and Wales rose to £9,535 this year but hopes to see further change.

"We're being asked to do more research with less money and teach more students with fewer resources," she told the BBC.

"The only way that we can deal with a situation like that is really to cut our costs, which often means that we have to lose staff and you can see that happening across the sector."

Additional reporting by Branwen Jeffreys and Hope Rhodes

This weekend's "No Kings" demonstrations drew an estimated crowd of millions across the US to protest President Donald Trump's policies and his willingness to push the boundaries of presidential authority.

It was a moment for likeminded Democrats, liberals and some anti-Trump Republicans to rally together at a time when the American left has little formal power in national politics.

But where do they go from here?

By most accounts, the turnout at Saturday's events - in major US cities like Chicago, New York, Washington and Los Angeles, as well as hundreds of smaller towns – was higher than expected and surpassed the first "No Kings" rally in June.

Congressional Republicans had warned that the demonstrations would be "anti-American", and some conservative governors had put their law enforcement and National Guard on alert in case of violence.

The massive rallies turned out to be peaceful – a carnival, not carnage. In New York City, there were no protest-related arrests, and the gathering in Washington DC featured families and young children.

"Today all across America in numbers that may eclipse any day of protest in our nation's history, Americans are saying loudly and proudly that we are a free people, we are not a people that can be ruled, our government is not for sale," Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said in his speech to the Washington DC rally.

Just down the street from the No Kings gathering in the nation's capital, the White House responded to the protests with derision.

"Who cares," deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson wrote in response to multiple media inquiries about the marches.

Trump shared several AI-generated videos on his Truth Social website of him wearing a crown, including one where he was flying a jet that dumped what appeared to be human waste on the protesters.

While Republicans may be downplaying the significance of the marches, the scale of the turnout – along with Trump's net negative approval rating in major opinion polls - hints at a Democratic opportunity to rebound from last year's electoral defeats.

The party still has a long way to go, however.

Polls suggest only a third of Americans view it favourably - the lowest for decades - and Democrats are divided over how to mount an effective opposition to Trump when they no longer control either chamber of Congress.

Liberals took to the streets on Saturday for a variety of reasons. Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement, his tariff policies, his government cuts, his foreign policy, his deployment of National Guard in US cities and his norm-breaking use of presidential authority were all frequent topics of concern and outrage.

Some of the frustration was also directed at Democratic leaders.

"We're just taking it on the chin, and we're not speaking out," one march attendee in Washington DC told NBC News on Saturday. "You know, I think we need to throw some more elbows. Unfortunately, the high road doesn't work."

The Democrats have been more combative over the ongoing government shutdown, which is about to enter its fourth week. They have been unwilling to approve a short-term extension of current federal spending without a bipartisan agreement to address health-insurance subsidies for low-income Americans set to expire at the end of the year.

Because of Senate parliamentary rules, Democrats have some power despite being in the minority – and, at least so far, the public seems to be assigning at least as much, if not more, blame for the impasse to Trump and the Republican majority.

But the strategy comes with risks too. The pain from the shutdown – particularly for those in the Democratic coalition – is only going to increase as the weeks go by.

Many federal workers have missed paycheques and are facing financial hardship. Funding is expected to run out for low-income food support. The US judicial system is scaling back its operations. And the Trump administration is using the shutdown to order new cuts to the federal workforce and suspend domestic spending, targeting Democratic states and cities.

The reality is that Democratic leaders in the Senate will ultimately have to find a way out of the crisis. But they may be hard-pressed to reach terms that the protesters who took to the streets on Saturday will find acceptable.

"If we shake hands with President Trump on a deal, we don't want him then next week just firing thousands more people, cancelling economic development projects, cancelling public health funds," Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said on Sunday in an interview on NBC's Meet The Press. "So we are trying to get an agreement that a deal is a deal."

There is a chance the government shutdown will still be happening in early November when voters in some states will head to the ballot box for the first time since last year's presidential contest.

Elections for governor and state legislatures could provide a barometer for whether the anti-Trump sentiment on display at the "No Kings" protests translates into electoral success for Democrats.

Four years ago, a Republican won the governor's race in Virginia, an electoral battleground that has trended left in recent presidential elections, providing an early sign of voter dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden. This time around, the Democrat – former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger – is leading her Republican opponent in the polls.

While Trump lost New Jersey in last year's presidential election, the margin of defeat - less than 6% - was dramatically down from Biden's 16% victory in 2020 and Hillary Clinton's 14% margin in 2017. November's governor's election shows a similarly close race.

At the No Kings rally in Montclair, New Jersey, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin urged attendees to vote in the upcoming election.

"It is one thing to show up at these protests," he said. "And it's another to move the needle and get back some power."

This November's elections will be a test of whether antipathy toward Trump is enough to get left-wing voters to support Democratic candidates.

They are, however, just a prelude to next year's midterm elections, which will decide which party controls both chambers of the US Congress and could provide Democrats with a real check on Trump's power for the last two years of his presidential term.

The priority at Saturday's protests was to unite around a Stop Trump message. Of less concern, at least for the moment, was what Democrats could do once they get back to power.

There have, however, been some indications that cracks remain within the party coalition.

Former Vice-President Kamala Harris's book tour, for example, has regularly been interrupted by pro-Palestinian protestors who object to the Biden administration's Middle East policies. Centrist proposals to focus on economic issues over social policies – including trans rights – have prompted condemnations from many on the left.

Maine, Massachusetts, California and Michigan are likely to have contentious primary battles to determine Democratic nominees in next year's elections – pitting older establishment politicians against younger candidates and liberals against centrists.

These battles could quickly open old political wounds that are hard to heal. In that case, marches alone may not be enough to solve what has ailed the party.

It is the most spectacular robbery at the Louvre museum since the Mona Lisa disappeared in 1911.

And it poses serious questions about levels of security covering French artworks, at a time when they are increasingly being targeted by criminal gangs.

According to France's new interior minister Laurent Nunez, the gang that broke into the Apollo Gallery Sunday morning was clearly professional.

They knew what they wanted, had evidently "cased the joint" in advance, had a brazenly simple but effective modus operandi, and needed no more than seven minutes to take their booty and get away.

In a truck equipped with an elevating platform of the type used by removal companies, they parked on the street outside, raised themselves up to the first floor, then used a disc-cutter to enter through a window.

Inside the richly decorated gallery they made for two display-cases which contain what remains of the French crown jewels.

Most of France's royal regalia was lost or sold after the 1789 Revolution, but some items were saved or bought back. Most of what was in the cases, though, dates from the 19th Century and the two imperial families of Napoleon and his nephew Napoleon III.

According to the authorities, eight items were taken including diadems, necklaces, ear-rings and brooches.

They had belonged to Napoleon's wife the empress Marie-Louise; to his sister-in-law Queen Hortense of Holland; to Queen Marie-Amelie, wife of France's last King Louis-Philippe, who ruled from 1830 to 1848; and to the empress Eugénie, wife of Napoleon III, who ruled from 1852 to 1870.

A crown of the empress Eugénie was left at the scene and is being examined to see if it is damaged.

In a statement the culture ministry said that the alarms had sounded correctly. Five museum staff who were in the gallery or nearby followed protocol by contacting security forces and protecting visitors.

It said the gang had tried to set fire to their vehicle outside but were prevented by the intervention of a museum staff-member.

The heist took place in a gallery just a short walk from some of the world's most famous paintings – such as the Mona Lisa.

But the criminal groups that order heists like this do not target world-famous paintings that cannot ever be displayed or sold. They prefer items that can be converted into cash – and jewels top the list.

However huge their historical and cultural value, crowns and diadems can easily be broken apart and sold in bits. Even large and famous diamonds can be cut. The final sales price might not be what the original artefact was worth, but it will still be considerable.

Two recent museum thefts in France had already alerted the authorities to the growing audacity of art gangs, and a security plan drawn up by the culture ministry is gradually being put into effect across France.

"We are well aware that French museums are vulnerable," said Nunez.

In September thieves took raw gold – in its mineral state – from the Natural History Museum in Paris. The gold was worth about 600,000 euros (£520,000) and will have been easily disposed of on the black market.

In the same month thieves took porcelain worth 6,000,000 euros from a museum in Limoges – a city once famous for its chinaware. The haul could well have been commissioned by a foreign buyer.

The Louvre contains thousands of artworks that are famous around the world, and an equal number of more obscure items that are nonetheless culturally significant.

But in its 230-year history there have been relatively few thefts – largely thanks to the tight security in place.

The most recent disappearance was of a landscape by the 19th Century artist Camille Corot. Le Chemin de Sèvres (The Road to Sèvres) was simply removed from a wall in 1998 when no-one was looking, and has not been seen since.

But by far the most famous theft was the one that took place in 1911, when Leonardo da Vinci's La Joconde – better known now as the Mona Lisa – was taken. The culprit back then was able to roll it up and put it inside his jacket.

It turned out he was an Italian nationalist who wanted the artwork brought back home. It was found in Italy in 1914 and returned to the Louvre.

Unless they have a quick success in catching the thieves, today's investigators are unlikely to be so lucky.

The first aim of the gang will be to disperse the jewels and sell them on. It will not be hard.