The Princess of Wales has joined the rest of the royal family at a major Remembrance Weekend event in London.

Catherine is gradually returning to public duties following her cancer chemotheraphy treatment - she made her first official public engagement in October.

She joined the rest of the Royal Family as well as senior politicians at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night.

Queen Camilla was not able to attend as she was recovering from a chest infection, the palace said in a statement earlier on Saturday.

The Festival of Remembrance - an evening featuring music performances and storytelling - is being held to pay respect to serving personnel, veterans and their families.

You’re probably used to politicians telling you we’re living in the most dangerous times for decades.

But who’s going to pay for our protection?

Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries’ defence.

As one UK source told me, “it doesn’t make sense for Europe’s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.”

So Trump's return puts this question right to the top of the list.

The UK government does plan, eventually, to hit the target the Conservatives committed to - of spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last hit back in 2010.

But there’s a defence review underway, and a spending review of every penny spent in Whitehall to get through first.

They’re expected to come one after the other, next spring.

John Healey, the defence secretary, was granted an extra £3bn in the Budget, which is a chunky sum of money - but in terms of defence spending, not a transformative amount of cash.

And it’s only a top-up for a year, with no certainty over long-term funding.

A former minister said: “It’s very hard to order for the years ahead - how long can we be talking, when the need is now?”

The government will not say when they expect to hit the 2.5% target - and won’t commit to hitting it before the end of the Parliament in 2029 - causing frustration in some quarters.

A senior source said “you either believe it is the most dangerous time in decades and you fund it properly, or you just don’t really believe it, so you don’t.”

And earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of making an effective “cut in our defence budget” by including £3bn of Ukraine funding in it.

If Labour reach the 2.5% target, he said he’d welcome it, “but it’s got to be real money with a timetable”.

There is little disagreement that more resources are needed.

John Healey himself has acknowledged the military “are not ready to fight”. A squeeze on funding over many years had made money tight – the forces “hollowed out”, according to Wallace.

The UK’s support for Ukraine, which has almost universal political support at home, has added to pressure.

According to the National Audit Office, the UK has committed nearly £8 billion to Ukraine - air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks and ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment.

Another former minister told me that funding “is absolutely urgent – it is urgent to help Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger – it’s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.”

And shortly before the election, the government’s new national security adviser Jonathan Powell wrote that a new administration would need to reinforce the UK’s defence and security “within the bounds allowed by a struggling economy”.

Some insiders argue rising threats around the world mean the UK should spend way more than 2.5% in any case.

Another former minister told me, “by any measure we are underspending – if you don’t buy the insurance policy you end up having to pay yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison”.

A defence source told me, “we are going to have to make a move on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope we get through it – the Treasury has to do the maths on this – the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the future is to spend now.”

How it's spent

But it’s not just about how much money goes to defence - it’s also about how it’s spent.

Recent history is littered with examples of Ministry of Defence projects that overrun and overspend, some in eye-watering proportions.

One insider told me, “the worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly … the number needs to go up but we absolutely need to get a proper grip of procurement.”

Several sources mentioned with some pride, and indeed surprise, the way the MoD had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to get the right kit into their hands quickly.

One said the MoD had “proved it can spend cash well but it needs to show it can do it consistently”.

Another said the British military had to shed its culture where “only the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought”.

The MoD reckons it can crack down on waste and improve the way things are bought and paid for with new more centralised methods – even hiring a new national armaments director to manage this.

As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so too do the ways militaries respond with kit.

A former minister said: “forget your big new fantasy regiment – we can make what we have more lethal” instead.

The government says it wants to shake up and sort out the mess that defence procurement has become. But there is no doubt that is easier said than done.

Power era

While as a political party, Labour is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump’s re-election, when it comes to defence there is some sympathy with his attitude towards European defence funding.

One insider said, “put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of his politics, it’s none of our business.”

Another source told me, “Trump set challenge to Europe last time and he was in part right to,” pointing out that after his term in office the number of NATO countries who did hit the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence did go up.

Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, up from just six countries in 2021.

Rather than worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, “a precondition for Trump to take European defence seriously is for Europe to take its own defence seriously.”

It’s hard to see how that does not mean more countries on the continent spending more of their own cash.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, NATO does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,” said a defence source.

America’s role in our security is vital. But sources in government acknowledge that Europe, with conflict on its fringes, must play a vigorous financial part.

Eager to be seen as the leader in Nato, the UK is taking steps to boost defence cooperation across the continent – leaders recently signed a “landmark defence agreement” with Germany.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House sets nerves jangling across the Atlantic about what it will mean for Nato, what it will mean for the US committment to support for Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and cold hard cash.

There is instinctive political unease here with his behaviour, his attitude to the law, convention, and the truth. But perhaps in the words of one source “it’s not a rule of law era, it’s a power era”.

Before the Trump victory, there were already profound questions for our politicians about how they protect our interests.

The imperative to answer them is stronger now the unpredictable president is on his way back.

Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe may need to display and pay for more of its own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.

Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

A senior adviser to president-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in the war in Ukraine rather than winning back territory.

Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace".

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said.

Russia annexed the Crimea peninsula in 2014. Eight years later, it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and has occupied territory in the country's east.

Trump has already spoken to Zelensky since winning the US election - the pair held a phone call on Wednesday with billionaire Elon Musk also taking part.

“It was a short chat with Musk, but it was a good lengthy conversation with Trump, it lasted about half an hour,” a source in Ukraine's presidential office told the BBC.

“It was not really a conversation to talk about very substantial things, but overall it was very warm and pleasant.”

Trump has consistently said his priority is to end the war and stem the drain on US resources.

His Democrat opponents have accused him of cosying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin and say his approach to the war amounts to surrender for Ukraine and will endanger all of Europe.

Last month, Zelensky presented a "victory plan" to the Ukrainian parliament that included a refusal to trade Ukraine’s territories and sovereignty.

During his election campaign, Trump repeatedly said he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in a day”, but gave no details. A paper written by two of his former national security chiefs in May said the US should continue supplying weapons, but make the support conditional on Kyiv entering peace talks with Russia.

Ukraine should not give up its hopes of getting all of its territory back from Russian occupation, the paper said, but it should negotiate based on current front lines.

Mr Lanza did not mention areas of eastern Ukraine, but he said regaining Crimea from Russia was unrealistic and "not the goal of the United States".

"When Zelensky says we will only stop this fighting, there will only be peace once Crimea is returned, we've got news for President Zelensky: Crimea is gone," he told the BBC World Service’s Weekend programme.

"And if that is your priority of getting Crimea back and having American soldiers fight to get Crimea back, you're on your own."

Mr Lanza said he had tremendous respect for the Ukrainian people, describing them as having the hearts of lions. But he said the US priority was "peace and to stop the killing".

"What we're going to say to Ukraine is, you know what you see? What do you see as a realistic vision for peace. It's not a vision for winning, but it's a vision for peace. And let's start having the honest conversation," he said.

Earlier this week, Putin congratulated Trump on his election victory and said Trump's claim that he can help end the war in Ukraine "deserves attention at least".

Mr Lanza also criticised the support the Biden-Harris administration and European countries have given to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.

"The reality on the ground is that the European nation states and President Biden did not give Ukraine the ability and the arms to win this war at the very beginning and they failed to lift the restrictions for Ukraine to win," he said.

Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives approved a $61bn (£49bn) package in military aid for Ukraine to help combat Russia's invasion.

The US has been the biggest arms supplier to Ukraine - between February 2022 and the end of June 2024, it delivered or committed weapons and equipment worth $55.5bn (£41.5bn), according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research organisation.

Senior US officials have reportedly said Washington will no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting the latest proposals to achieve a Gaza ceasefire and a hostage deal.

In anonymous briefings to the Reuters news agency, the officials said the Qatari government had agreed to tell Hamas to close its political office 10 days ago.

Hamas have had a political base in Doha since 2012, reportedly at the request of the Obama administration, to allow communication with the group.

The reports have been denied to the BBC by Hamas officials; Qatar has yet to comment.

The small but influential gulf state is a key US ally in the region. It hosts a major American air base and has handled many delicate political negotiations, including with Iran, the Taliban and Russia. Alongside the US and Egypt, the Qataris have also played a major role in rounds of so-far unsuccessful talks to broker a ceasefire in the year-long war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The latest round of talks in mid-October failed to produce a deal, with Hamas rejecting a short-term ceasefire proposal. They have always called for a complete end to the war and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

Israel has also been accused of rejecting deals. Days after being fired earlier this week, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of rejecting a peace deal against the advice of his security chiefs.

Dr H A Hellyer, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), thinks the reports are credible. “I think we’re in the last phase before Hamas is forced to relocate,” he told me. “The writing on the wall has been there for months.”

The call for Hamas to be expelled from Qatar appears to be an attempt by the outgoing Biden administration to force some sort of peace deal before the end of his term in January.

Were Hamas to be forced to leave Doha, it is unclear where they would base their political office. Key ally Iran would be an option, although the assassination of former leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July suggests they may be at risk from Israel if based there. It would also not give them anything close to the same diplomatic channels to the West.

A more likely option would be Turkey. As a Nato member but also a Sunni majority state, it would give the group a base from which to operate in relative safety. Last April President Erdogan hosted then Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh and his delegation in Istanbul, where they talked about “what needs to be done to ensure adequate and uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and a fair and lasting peace process in the region".

The move would also most likely be welcomed by Ankara, which has often sought to position itself as a broker between east and west.

It is thought the personal safety of Hamas leadership is now a major concern for the group, which saw two leaders killed in less than four months. As well as Haniyeh’s death in July, in October Israel killed Yahya Sinwar in Gaza - he was the mastermind behind the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel.

According to the European Council of Foreign Relations, “Hamas has adopted a temporary model of collective leadership to mitigate the effect of future Israeli assassinations”.

Dr Hellyer thinks that nowhere “will give them protection from Israeli assassination attempts in the same way that being in Doha, where America has its largest military base in the region, did”.

The latest move comes as US officials appear increasingly frustrated with the approach the Israeli government has taken to ending the war. In October, the US Secretaries of State and Defense said if Israel did not allow more humanitarian aid into the territory within 30 days, they would face unspecified policy “implications”.

Last weekend a number of UN officials warned the situation in northern Gaza was “apocalyptic”. On Saturday the independent Famine Review Committee said there was a “strong likelihood that famine is imminent in areas”.

The relationship between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu has deteriorated over the course of the war in Gaza, with increasing pressure from Washington to improve the humanitarian situation for the Palestinians and find some sort of negotiated settlement.

But, according to Dr Hellyer, US attempts at negotiation have been fatally flawed.

“By setting red lines and allowing Netanyahu to cross them without consequence, the Biden administration effectively encouraged further impunity. I don’t think any of this will change in the next 10 weeks,” he said.

Any overtures have been repeatedly rejected by Mr Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, who will now also feel emboldened by the prospect of an incoming Donald Trump presidency.

While exactly what approach Donald Trump will take to the region remains uncertain, he is thought to be more likely to allow Israel to act on its terms.

He has previously said Israel should “finish what they started” in Gaza. During his last term in the White House, he took a number of steps deemed highly favourable to Israel, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

It has also been reported, however, that Trump told Netanyahu that he wants to see an end to the fighting by the time he takes office.

Either way, it seems likely that the current US administration will have less influence over the government in Jerusalem.

They may therefore believe the best way to force some sort of deal is to apply pressure on Hamas. Whether it pays off may depend on whether Qatar, so long a reliable ally, decides to go along with it.

Senior US officials have reportedly said Washington will no longer accept the presence of Hamas representatives in Qatar, accusing the Palestinian group of rejecting the latest proposals to achieve a Gaza ceasefire and a hostage deal.

In anonymous briefings to the Reuters news agency, the officials said the Qatari government had agreed to tell Hamas to close its political office 10 days ago.

Hamas have had a political base in Doha since 2012, reportedly at the request of the Obama administration, to allow communication with the group.

The reports have been denied to the BBC by Hamas officials; Qatar has yet to comment.

The small but influential gulf state is a key US ally in the region. It hosts a major American air base and has handled many delicate political negotiations, including with Iran, the Taliban and Russia. Alongside the US and Egypt, the Qataris have also played a major role in rounds of so-far unsuccessful talks to broker a ceasefire in the year-long war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The latest round of talks in mid-October failed to produce a deal, with Hamas rejecting a short-term ceasefire proposal. They have always called for a complete end to the war and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

Israel has also been accused of rejecting deals. Days after being fired earlier this week, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of rejecting a peace deal against the advice of his security chiefs.

Dr H A Hellyer, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), thinks the reports are credible. “I think we’re in the last phase before Hamas is forced to relocate,” he told me. “The writing on the wall has been there for months.”

The call for Hamas to be expelled from Qatar appears to be an attempt by the outgoing Biden administration to force some sort of peace deal before the end of his term in January.

Were Hamas to be forced to leave Doha, it is unclear where they would base their political office. Key ally Iran would be an option, although the assassination of former leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July suggests they may be at risk from Israel if based there. It would also not give them anything close to the same diplomatic channels to the West.

A more likely option would be Turkey. As a Nato member but also a Sunni majority state, it would give the group a base from which to operate in relative safety. Last April President Erdogan hosted then Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh and his delegation in Istanbul, where they talked about “what needs to be done to ensure adequate and uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and a fair and lasting peace process in the region".

The move would also most likely be welcomed by Ankara, which has often sought to position itself as a broker between east and west.

It is thought the personal safety of Hamas leadership is now a major concern for the group, which saw two leaders killed in less than four months. As well as Haniyeh’s death in July, in October Israel killed Yahya Sinwar in Gaza - he was the mastermind behind the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel.

According to the European Council of Foreign Relations, “Hamas has adopted a temporary model of collective leadership to mitigate the effect of future Israeli assassinations”.

Dr Hellyer thinks that nowhere “will give them protection from Israeli assassination attempts in the same way that being in Doha, where America has its largest military base in the region, did”.

The latest move comes as US officials appear increasingly frustrated with the approach the Israeli government has taken to ending the war. In October, the US Secretaries of State and Defense said if Israel did not allow more humanitarian aid into the territory within 30 days, they would face unspecified policy “implications”.

Last weekend a number of UN officials warned the situation in northern Gaza was “apocalyptic”. On Saturday the independent Famine Review Committee said there was a “strong likelihood that famine is imminent in areas”.

The relationship between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu has deteriorated over the course of the war in Gaza, with increasing pressure from Washington to improve the humanitarian situation for the Palestinians and find some sort of negotiated settlement.

But, according to Dr Hellyer, US attempts at negotiation have been fatally flawed.

“By setting red lines and allowing Netanyahu to cross them without consequence, the Biden administration effectively encouraged further impunity. I don’t think any of this will change in the next 10 weeks,” he said.

Any overtures have been repeatedly rejected by Mr Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, who will now also feel emboldened by the prospect of an incoming Donald Trump presidency.

While exactly what approach Donald Trump will take to the region remains uncertain, he is thought to be more likely to allow Israel to act on its terms.

He has previously said Israel should “finish what they started” in Gaza. During his last term in the White House, he took a number of steps deemed highly favourable to Israel, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

It has also been reported, however, that Trump told Netanyahu that he wants to see an end to the fighting by the time he takes office.

Either way, it seems likely that the current US administration will have less influence over the government in Jerusalem.

They may therefore believe the best way to force some sort of deal is to apply pressure on Hamas. Whether it pays off may depend on whether Qatar, so long a reliable ally, decides to go along with it.

A family has paid tribute to their son who has been killed in Ukraine, saying they "begged him not to go" but he wanted to help.

Callum Tindal-Draper's family said they were informed by the 4th International Legion that the 22-year-old from Cornwall had been killed in action while the foreign volunteer platoon defended an observation point on 5 November.

His father Steven Draper said the family were proud of their "brave" son, who had told them before going to Ukraine in June he knew the risks he would face and the chances of him coming home were slim.

The BBC has contacted the Foreign Office for further information.

Foreign Office advice has urged people not to travel to Ukraine while the country is in conflict with Russia.

Mr Draper said the family, who live in Gunnislake in Cornwall, had tried to convince his son not to travel out to Ukraine, but they understood it was something he was passionate about doing because he wanted to help.

"We begged and begged and begged him not to go," Mr Draper said.

"But Callum said 'dad, I'm not frightened of bullies and what's going on in Ukraine is awful and someone needs to stand up for these people'."

His mother Caroline Tindal said the family were all "so proud" of Mr Tindal-Draper, who had previously worked at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth and as a carer in the community.

She went out to visit her son in Ukraine in September and said she noticed he had matured as a person.

"It was such a transformation and he said to me 'mum, coming out here was the best thing that ever happened to me, I've found who I was meant to be'," Ms Tindal said.

"He found who he was meant to be, he became that person and he lived it."

'Overwhelming love'

She added Mr Tindal-Draper's battalion had told the family in video messages and handwritten letters they held him in high-esteem and he was an inspiration to them in Ukraine.

Ms Tindal said: "When we found out he'd died, there was just this hole which I can't describe and it's always going to be there.

"But to know that they are saying he inspired them and they called him their little brother because he was the youngest one out there, they really were a family unit, and that is helping heal us and helping us get by.

"Already that hole I thought could not be mended is being filled with overwhelming love from his family out there and it means so much."

Mr Draper said the hole left by his son's death was "crushing", but he was filling it with pride from listening to what his comrades had said to the family.

He added: "It's inspiring me to go out and think what can I do and how can I be as brave and courageous in the things that I do.

"I've got the bravest of the brave as a son as an inspiration and that's really powerful."

Ms Tindal said the family have not had Mr Tindal-Draper's body back yet, but the family have plans to bury him in Ukraine.

She said: "He wanted to stay in Ukraine and live in Ukraine, so I think even if we had the body we would bury him in Ukraine - that's where he found his home."

Follow BBC Cornwall on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@bbc.co.uk.

The Roman archaeological site of Pompeii will limit the number of daily visitors to the site to 20,000 a day after a steep rise in visitors.

A record high 36,000 tourists visited the site on the first Sunday of October, when entry was free, local media reported.

The park’s management said on Friday that the site would cap its daily visitor number from 15 November.

Pompeii, the Roman city buried in an eruption from nearby Mount Vesuvius in AD79, is one of the best-preserved Roman sites anywhere in the world.

Nearly 4 million people visited the main Pompeii site in 2023, a third more than the previous year. Visitor counts had been climbing in the run up to the pandemic and in 2023 were above pre-Covid levels.

More than 480,000 people visited in October 2024.

In October 2024, there were more than 480,000 visitors, putting the average at about 15,500 a day. The busiest month so far this year was May, when about 517,000 people visited, or some 16,700 a day.

The 20,000 cap is likely to only lead to tourists being turned away on a handful of occasions. A spokesperson for the park told Reuters that it had only exceeded 20,000 visitors when entry is free on the first Sunday of the month, as well as three or four fee-paying days.

Gabriel Zuchtriegel, the park's director, said that reducing the effects of human visitors at Pompeii was important for conservation and safety reasons.

The city was devastated by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which preserved swathes of it almost intact under a layer of ash for over 1,000 years.

About a third of the site has yet to be excavated. It continues to be of huge interest to archaeologists, providing the most complete picture of daily Roman life anywhere in the world.

Earlier this year, archaeologists revealed frescos of mythical Greek figures including Helen of Troy and Apollo. The artworks were found in a banqueting hall with dramatic black walls and a mosaic floor made of more than 1 million white tiles.

Entry tickets to Pompeii start at €18 (£14.90; $19.30).

The 12:40 bus has just driven past Janette Ward’s stop seven minutes early as she watches from the other side of the road, waiting to cross. There won’t be another for two hours.

“It makes it very difficult when you’re going for an appointment or you’re connecting to a rail service or other bus service,” says Ms Ward, 74.

There’s also been further changes to make her journey more complicated, she says. Janette now has to take four buses to see her daughter in Stroud, Gloucestershire. Before, she only needed to change buses once.

Her situation is by no means unique.

The frequency of rural bus services in England has reached a historic low, according to a report by the County Councils Network. They found more than a quarter of rural routes had been lost over the decade to 2023.

And last week's UK Budget revealed that the £2 cap on bus fares in much of England will increase by £1. It could mean an extra £40 a month for someone who gets a return five days a week.

Since then dozens of people have got in touch with BBC News, many saying that buses remain fundamentally unreliable.

Some passengers say there's a lack of digital screens at bus stops and live app updates for some routes outside of cities, unlike trains and Ubers where many are used to tracking journeys in real time.

And even where tracking exists, it can sometimes be out of date.

Take Leeds, for example, where some locals claim they've had to endure “ghost buses” - they’re advertised as coming on live displays at bus stops, but never do.

“For people who rely on the bus as their only means of getting to work it’s impossibly frustrating,” says Cllr Eleanor Thomson, who runs a Facebook group for bus passengers in the Yorkshire city.

“Some people in the area have moved because they’re that fed up of it, or they’ve bought a car, which is costing them a lot of money.”

Bus operators told the local authority in January they’re installing 4G technology to improve tracking, but Cllr Thomson says it “doesn’t seem to be getting any better”.

'Poor technology'

Janette has similar experiences of unreliable service updates in Hereford.

“On bank holidays, sometimes the tracking service doesn’t know if a bus is coming at all,” she says.

Campaigners think bringing the entire bus network into the 21st Century would give people more confidence in the service and make them more likely to use it.

“If you know that your bus is coming in five minutes, then you know you have that certainty,” says Silviya Barrett, director of policy and research from the Campaign for Better Transport.

“Whereas in some bus stops there isn't even the basic timetable, let alone the live arrival updates.”

Cost concerns

Doreen Gower, who doesn’t drive, uses the bus regularly to attend hospital appointments in Hereford.

Now that her service only runs once every two hours, she feels she sometimes has to find alternatives because of the inconvenience.

“If you’re not feeling very well, you don’t particularly want to have to wait for another two hours for a bus. It means that I maybe have to pay £25 for a taxi to get me home,” she tells us.

She also relies on volunteers, who provide a ring-and-ride service, to bring her to and from her local GP surgery in a neighbouring village around 20 minutes away.

As well as passengers, poor rural bus services are costing employers.

“It’s pretty grim, some businesses are completely cut off from public transport,” says Natalie Fryer, who has been appointed by Cumbria’s tourism board to improve the situation.

“Employees are walking down dark roads from their closest bus stops or train stations, with employers concerned for their safety. Some businesses say they put up staff in their own homes just so they can stay open.”

In an attempt to work around the problem, Gilpin Hotel, which lies in the heart of the Lake District, spends £8,000 per month on taxis bringing some of its 137 staff to and from work. Many don't drive, a common occurrence in the hospitality sector.

Helen Tappenden, who oversees personnel at the hotel, says the business has to "put our hand in our pocket" to avoid recruitment and retention problems.

“For our staff it can feel very isolating because, while they might love working here, without a bus route they struggle to have some normality - like popping to a coffee shop or a cinema," she tells the BBC.

And 40 miles away at Muncaster Castle - which is popular with visitors and wedding guests - Ewan Frost-Pennington lets some staff stay in a house on the grounds because of the lack of transport connections.

"That's got six young people living in it, of which I think two can drive," says Ewan, whose family have lived in the castle for 800 years.

A franchised solution?

The UK Government insists it recognises the current service offered by bus operators is unsatisfactory for many passengers - particularly in rural areas and it will introduce a new law to address that.

Officials say the forthcoming buses bill will allow councils in England to deliver better services as they could choose to take control of them.

Under this franchising system, councils could be able to decide routes, timetables and fares - with operators bidding to run services for a fixed fee.

In London and Greater Manchester, where this system is active, bus fares will remain capped at £1.75 and £2 respectively after the new England-wide cap rise - and some passengers told the BBC they felt this risked widening regional inequality.

But experts warn this kind of system is not suitable for all communities and that it works best when a council area includes both urban and rural parts.

“The benefit is that if you have both of these, the more profitable ones in urban areas can pay for the services in rural areas,” says Silviya.

She adds that another reason why some councils may choose not to operate a franchised bus system is that they no longer have the expertise. ”They haven't managed buses to this extent since privatisation,” she says.

In 1986, services outside of London were deregulated and privatised. Before then most bus services were operated by publicly owned companies, which were often run by councils.

Some experts say bus services would also be made better if the way they are funded was made simpler - as currently there are six separate pots councils can apply to for money.

“Streamlining bus funding into a single, long-term pot would give councils greater control over services and spending and residents more long-term certainty over future services," says Cllr Adam Hug, transport spokesman for the Local Government Association.

Graham Vidler, from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents bus operators, tells us: "We accept that passengers face a mixed picture depending on where they live."

He said better technology at bus stops was the responsibility of local councils but that many would struggle to find the money to upgrade them given their tight budgets and the fact there are so many.

"In contrast to the rail network, where there is a manageable number of stations, there are tens and tens of thousands of bus stops across the country."

Louis Dyson, managing director of DRM Buses, which operates the route in Herefordshire that Janette and Doreen use, says the company had cut the route from hourly to two-hourly because of a drop in passenger numbers.

“If as much funding was given to support rural services, rather than making city buses run every 15 minutes, then perhaps there would be more options for the public,” he says.

Dyson says that when buses were running late it was usually caused by bad traffic, roadworks, bad weather and a lack of bus lanes - factors outside of drivers’ control.

And in response to claims that passengers can’t always view accurate information about when DRM’s buses are arriving, he says vehicles have ticket machine tracking software but that the rural location of services interfered with their connectivity.

Dyson says the service that Janette and Doreen regularly take would be changing to hourly “in the next month or two” if it gets approval from officials.

For people like Janette and Doreen, that can’t come soon enough. For them buses are what give them their independence and a chance to see family and friends.

“We’re only asking for the service we had before to be reinstated,” says Janette. “Nothing more.”

Additional reporting by Jennie Dennett, David Spereall and Grace Dean.