America is choosing its path forward, and the stakes could not be higher.

Both candidates have presented stark visions for the future if they lose this election. Donald Trump says the country will "go to hell" and become "communist immediately" if he loses, while Kamala Harris describes her opponent as a "fascist" who wants "unchecked power".

Voters in the key battleground states have been bombarded by campaign ads, much of it designed to induce fear. Given this climate, it is no wonder surveyed Americans are reporting high levels of anxiety.

"I do believe they're making us live in fear just to get our vote," Heather Soucek told me in Wisconsin as election day loomed. She lives in a swing county in a swing state, and plans to back Trump because, in her words, Harris's economic plans are "scary".

But just along the street, I also met Tracy Andropolis, a registered independent who said she would vote for Harris. "It's one of the most important elections in my lifetime. There's a lot on the line," she said, adding that she was concerned Trump would refuse to give up power if he won.

Both expressed genuine fears for the future if their candidate lost, reflecting the existential mood of many voters on the eve of the election.

Ms Andropolis also told me she did not believe the neck-and-neck polls. Not because she has any real evidence, but because she cannot envisage millions of people planning to vote for Trump. And she is by no means alone in her struggles to accept the closeness of this race.

One of the things I've learned travelling around this country and talking to voters is that America doesn't just seem remarkably divided, it feels as though two separate nations are awkwardly cohabiting on the same land mass.

Democrats mainly live in the cities and suburbs, with Republicans mostly living in rural areas. Americans are increasingly moving to places where their neighbours share their political outlook. And it’s not hard to identify these areas at the moment, given the yard signs and placards that so often mark out Trump and Harris territory.

But it is not possible to live in these separate political worlds forever. These two sides are about to collide with the harsh reality of an election.

However disputed, however contested, there has to be a winner.

And when some here learn the eventual result and realise that tens of millions of their fellow Americans feel very differently to them, it will be a shock.

Both Trump and Harris have charted their own historic and tumultuous paths to polling day.

I was among the press pack gathered outside a Manhattan court to witness Trump's arraignment in his criminal hush-money trial in April. He was found guilty weeks later, becoming the first former or sitting president to be convicted of a crime. Many asked at the time: could a convicted felon really reclaim the White House?

But his legal troubles and his claim that he was being deliberately targeted by the Biden administration only fuelled his campaign and fired up his supporters. "They're not after me, they're after you," he would so often say.

"They're weaponising the criminal justice system against their political enemies, and it's not right," one of his supporters told me outside the courthouse. "I will fight for this man until the day I die," another said.

A familiar pattern emerged: with each indictment, his poll ratings climbed and financial donations poured in.

Just think back to the moment last year when his mugshot was taken as part of the election interference case in Georgia. It quickly became an iconic image that now adorns many of the T-shirts I see at Trump rallies.

And it is impossible to recount the former president's wild ride to polling day without the moment that produced another iconic image and almost ended the contest altogether.

When Trump was shot by a would-be assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July, it shook this race and this nation profoundly. As he was helped to his feet by Secret Service agents, blood pouring from his ear, he raised his fist in the air and urged his supporters to fight.

When he appeared just 48 hours later at his party's convention in Milwaukee with gauze over his ear, some in the crowd were weeping. I could see tears rolling down the face of one delegate standing near to me. It was Tina Ioane, who'd travelled from American Samoa.

"He is the anointed," she told me. "He was called to lead our nation."

At that stage in the summer, electorally, Trump looked unassailable.

On the other side, Democrats were becoming increasingly depressed about their own prospects. Deeply anxious that their candidate, Joe Biden, was too old to win re-election.

I was in the press room watching his shambolic debate against Trump in late June. There was stunned silence as we watched Biden's 50-year career in politics essentially come to an end in front of our eyes.

But even then, many who publicly suggested he should step aside were dismissed. The Biden campaign even hit out at the "bedwetting brigade" who were calling for him to go.

It would, of course, be a matter of time.

Just days after that jubilant Republican convention in July, when Trump looked like he could not lose, Biden announced he was giving up his re-election bid. The mood among Democratic supporters soon swung from anxious pessimism to excited anticipation.

Any reservations they had about whether Kamala Harris was their best candidate were erased at a joyful convention in Chicago a few weeks later. People who had been resigned to defeat were now swept away on a tide of enthusiasm.

This election represented a chance to "move past the bitterness, cynicism and divisive battles of the past", she said to loud cheers.

But this burst of excitement did not last. After an initial bump in the polls, Harris struggled to maintain the momentum. It appears she quickly won back traditional Democrats who were not backing Biden but found it harder to win over crucial undecided voters.

Harris, however, has repeatedly pushed that more optimistic message. She has also made reproductive rights a cornerstone of her campaign, and is hoping the issue will motivate women to turn out in high numbers.

But the challenge, as in all presidential elections, is to convince the undecided.

I met Zoie Cheneau at a hair salon she owns in Atlanta, Georgia, less than two weeks out from the election. She said she had never been so unmotivated to vote.

"It's the lesser of two evils for me right now," she said, explaining that she would ultimately cast her ballot for Harris but felt Trump may prove better for small businesses.

"I will be excited that a black woman would be the president of the United States," she said. "And she will win, I know she will win."

Two tribes face crunch moment

While some voters are anxious and believe this race to be close, Ms Cheneau's certainty about the eventual result is something supporters on both sides repeatedly express.

Many Harris supporters simply cannot understand why she is not further ahead of a convicted criminal who has been publicly attacked and derided by those who served in his last administration.

Trump supporters are equally aghast that anyone could vote for a candidate who has flip-flopped on policy and has been in the White House at a time when illegal border crossings reached record levels.

These two tribes exist in what appear to be parallel political ecosystems, across a deep partisan divide where opposing views are dismissed and the candidates inspire a devoted loyalty that goes beyond normal party affiliation.

Voters have been given apocalpyptic warnings about what might happen if the other side wins. They've been told this election is about far more than who sits in the Oval Office for the next four years. Many believe it is an existential event that could have disastrous consequences.

There is no doubt the tone of this campaign has raised the stakes, ratcheting up anxiety and tension, meaning the aftermath of this election could be explosive. We are expecting legal challenges and street protests would be a surprise to no one.

This is a nation split between opposing visions of what's at stake. But it is in the polling stations that Red and Blue America will meet and be counted.

Whatever the result, roughly one half of the country is about to discover that the other half has a completely different sense of what America requires.

For the losers, this will be a stinging realisation.

• SIMPLE GUIDE: How to win the electoral college
• EXPLAINER: What Harris or Trump would do in power
• GLOBAL: How this election could change the world
• IN PICS: Different lives of Harris and Trump
• POLLS: Who is winning the race for the White House?

Eight people have gone on trial in Paris accused of encouraging the killer of Samuel Paty, the teacher who was beheaded on the street outside his school four years ago.

Abdoullakh Anzorov, the young man of Chechen origin who wielded the knife, is dead – shot by police in the minutes after his attack.

So the trial is less about the murder itself, and more about the circumstances that led to it.

Over seven weeks, the court will hear how a 13-year-old’s schoolgirl lie span out of control thanks to social media, triggering an international hate campaign, and inspiring a lone mission of vengeance from a self-styled defender of Islam.

On trial are two men accused of identifying Mr Paty as a “blasphemer” over the Internet, two friends of Anzorov who allegedly gave him logistical help, and four others who offered support on chatlines.

Mr Paty’s murder horrified – and petrified – France.

He was a conscientious and much-liked history teacher in a secondary school in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, in the prosperous western suburbs of Paris.

On 6 October 2020 he gave a lesson on freedom of speech – the same lesson he had given several times before – to a class of young teenagers.

Drawing on the tragically famous episode of Charlie Hebdo magazine – how publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad had led to the 2015 murder of most of its staff – he briefly showed an example of the cartoons.

Before doing so he recommended that those who feared being offended avert their eyes.

The next day one of his pupils – the 13-year-old girl – was asked by her father why she was not going to school.

She told him she had been disciplined because she dared to stand up to Mr Paty when he told Muslims to leave the class so he could show a naked picture of the prophet.

It was a triple lie.

Mr Paty had not told Muslims to leave the class. The girl had been disciplined, but not for the reason she said. She had not even been in the room on the day Mr Paty gave the lesson on freedom of speech.

But with the Internet to send it on its way, the lie spread... and spread.

First the girl’s father – Brahim Chnina - made her repeat the claim on videos, which he posted on Facebook, naming the teacher.

Then, a local Islamist - Abdelhakim Sefrioui - created a 10-minute online video entitled “Islam and the prophet insulted in a public college.”

Within a couple of days the school was inundated with threats and messages of hate from around the world. Paty told colleagues that he was living through a difficult time because of the campaign against him.

Meanwhile, the denunciation had reached the attention of an 18-year-old Chechen refugee living in Rouen, 80km (50 miles) to the west.

Anzorov made an initial note on his telephone that read: “A teacher has shown his class a picture of the messenger of Allah naked.”

Anzorov then sought the help of two friends, who are now on trial.

One of them was allegedly present when he bought a knife in a Rouen shop. The other helped him buy two replica pistols on 16 October, the day of the attack, and then drove him to the school.

The four last defendants - including one woman - are people with whom Anzorov conversed on Snapchat and Twitter and who allegedly offered him encouragement.

The defendants admit their connection to the case, but they contest the charges of "terrorist association" or "complicity to commit terrorist murder".

Lawyers for the girl’s father and the Islamist preacher will argue that though they publicly condemned Mr Paty, they never called for his murder.

In a similar vein, lawyers for Anzorov’s friends – actual and online – will say they had no notion he planned a killing.

For the prosecution, context is key. Samuel Paty’s murder took place at a time of heightened awareness of the jihadist threat. In October 2020, Charlie Hebdo had just re-published some of the cartoons, to mark the start of a trial resulting from the original attack.

The internet was full of new Islamist threats against France, and in late September a Pakistani man had wounded two people with a machete at Charlie Hebdo’s former offices.

In that climate, publicly denouncing a man for blasphemy was tantamount to designating a terrorist target, prosecutors will argue.

A year ago the girl at the heart of the case was convicted in a minors’ court of making false accusations and given a suspended prison term.

Five other pupils were also convicted of identifying Mr Paty for Anzarov in return for money.

The trial is set to run until late December.

Boeing workers have voted to accept the aviation giant's latest pay offer, ending a damaging seven-week-long walkout.

Striking workers can start returning to their jobs as early as Wednesday, or as late as 12 November, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union says.

Under the new contract, they will get a 38% pay rise over the next four years.

The walkout by more than 30,000 unionised Boeing workers started on 13 September, leading to a dramatic slowdown at the plane maker's factories and deepening a crisis at the company.

The IAM union said that 59% of the striking workers voted in favour of the new deal, which also includes a one-off $12,000 (£9,300) bonus, as well as changes to workers' retirement plans.

"This is a victory. We can hold our heads high," union leader Jon Holden said as he announced the results of the ballot.

The union had previously called for a 40% pay increase and workers had rejected two previous offers from the company.

Boeing has been trying to shore up its finances and end the strike, which has now cost it nearly $10bn, according to consulting firm Anderson Economic Group.

In October, its commercial aircraft business reported operating losses of $4bn for the three months to the end of September.

Last week, the firm launched a share sale to raise more than $20bn.

It came after warnings that a prolonged strike could lead to downgrades to Boeing's credit rating, which would make it more expensive for it to borrow money.

Last month, the firm said it would lay off around 17,000 workers, with the first redundancy notices expected to be issued in mid-November.

The latest crisis at Boeing erupted in January with a dramatic mid-air blowout of a piece of one of its passenger planes.

Its space business also suffered a reputational hit after its Starliner vessel was forced to return to Earth without carrying astronauts.

America is choosing its path forward, and the stakes could not be higher.

Both candidates have presented stark visions for the future if they lose this election. Donald Trump says the country will "go to hell" and become "communist immediately" if he loses, while Kamala Harris describes her opponent as a "fascist" who wants "unchecked power".

Voters in the key battleground states have been bombarded by campaign ads, much of it designed to induce fear. Given this climate, it is no wonder surveyed Americans are reporting high levels of anxiety.

"I do believe they're making us live in fear just to get our vote," Heather Soucek told me in Wisconsin as election day loomed. She lives in a swing county in a swing state, and plans to back Trump because, in her words, Harris's economic plans are "scary".

But just along the street, I also met Tracy Andropolis, a registered independent who said she would vote for Harris. "It's one of the most important elections in my lifetime. There's a lot on the line," she said, adding that she was concerned Trump would refuse to give up power if he won.

Both expressed genuine fears for the future if their candidate lost, reflecting the existential mood of many voters on the eve of the election.

Ms Andropolis also told me she did not believe the neck-and-neck polls. Not because she has any real evidence, but because she cannot envisage millions of people planning to vote for Trump. And she is by no means alone in her struggles to accept the closeness of this race.

One of the things I've learned travelling around this country and talking to voters is that America doesn't just seem remarkably divided, it feels as though two separate nations are awkwardly cohabiting on the same land mass.

Democrats mainly live in the cities and suburbs, with Republicans mostly living in rural areas. Americans are increasingly moving to places where their neighbours share their political outlook. And it’s not hard to identify these areas at the moment, given the yard signs and placards that so often mark out Trump and Harris territory.

But it is not possible to live in these separate political worlds forever. These two sides are about to collide with the harsh reality of an election.

However disputed, however contested, there has to be a winner.

And when some here learn the eventual result and realise that tens of millions of their fellow Americans feel very differently to them, it will be a shock.

Both Trump and Harris have charted their own historic and tumultuous paths to polling day.

I was among the press pack gathered outside a Manhattan court to witness Trump's arraignment in his criminal hush-money trial in April. He was found guilty weeks later, becoming the first former or sitting president to be convicted of a crime. Many asked at the time: could a convicted felon really reclaim the White House?

But his legal troubles and his claim that he was being deliberately targeted by the Biden administration only fuelled his campaign and fired up his supporters. "They're not after me, they're after you," he would so often say.

"They're weaponising the criminal justice system against their political enemies, and it's not right," one of his supporters told me outside the courthouse. "I will fight for this man until the day I die," another said.

A familiar pattern emerged: with each indictment, his poll ratings climbed and financial donations poured in.

Just think back to the moment last year when his mugshot was taken as part of the election interference case in Georgia. It quickly became an iconic image that now adorns many of the T-shirts I see at Trump rallies.

And it is impossible to recount the former president's wild ride to polling day without the moment that produced another iconic image and almost ended the contest altogether.

When Trump was shot by a would-be assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July, it shook this race and this nation profoundly. As he was helped to his feet by Secret Service agents, blood pouring from his ear, he raised his fist in the air and urged his supporters to fight.

When he appeared just 48 hours later at his party's convention in Milwaukee with gauze over his ear, some in the crowd were weeping. I could see tears rolling down the face of one delegate standing near to me. It was Tina Ioane, who'd travelled from American Samoa.

"He is the anointed," she told me. "He was called to lead our nation."

At that stage in the summer, electorally, Trump looked unassailable.

On the other side, Democrats were becoming increasingly depressed about their own prospects. Deeply anxious that their candidate, Joe Biden, was too old to win re-election.

I was in the press room watching his shambolic debate against Trump in late June. There was stunned silence as we watched Biden's 50-year career in politics essentially come to an end in front of our eyes.

But even then, many who publicly suggested he should step aside were dismissed. The Biden campaign even hit out at the "bedwetting brigade" who were calling for him to go.

It would, of course, be a matter of time.

Just days after that jubilant Republican convention in July, when Trump looked like he could not lose, Biden announced he was giving up his re-election bid. The mood among Democratic supporters soon swung from anxious pessimism to excited anticipation.

Any reservations they had about whether Kamala Harris was their best candidate were erased at a joyful convention in Chicago a few weeks later. People who had been resigned to defeat were now swept away on a tide of enthusiasm.

This election represented a chance to "move past the bitterness, cynicism and divisive battles of the past", she said to loud cheers.

But this burst of excitement did not last. After an initial bump in the polls, Harris struggled to maintain the momentum. It appears she quickly won back traditional Democrats who were not backing Biden but found it harder to win over crucial undecided voters.

Harris, however, has repeatedly pushed that more optimistic message. She has also made reproductive rights a cornerstone of her campaign, and is hoping the issue will motivate women to turn out in high numbers.

But the challenge, as in all presidential elections, is to convince the undecided.

I met Zoie Cheneau at a hair salon she owns in Atlanta, Georgia, less than two weeks out from the election. She said she had never been so unmotivated to vote.

"It's the lesser of two evils for me right now," she said, explaining that she would ultimately cast her ballot for Harris but felt Trump may prove better for small businesses.

"I will be excited that a black woman would be the president of the United States," she said. "And she will win, I know she will win."

Two tribes face crunch moment

While some voters are anxious and believe this race to be close, Ms Cheneau's certainty about the eventual result is something supporters on both sides repeatedly express.

Many Harris supporters simply cannot understand why she is not further ahead of a convicted criminal who has been publicly attacked and derided by those who served in his last administration.

Trump supporters are equally aghast that anyone could vote for a candidate who has flip-flopped on policy and has been in the White House at a time when illegal border crossings reached record levels.

These two tribes exist in what appear to be parallel political ecosystems, across a deep partisan divide where opposing views are dismissed and the candidates inspire a devoted loyalty that goes beyond normal party affiliation.

Voters have been given apocalpyptic warnings about what might happen if the other side wins. They've been told this election is about far more than who sits in the Oval Office for the next four years. Many believe it is an existential event that could have disastrous consequences.

There is no doubt the tone of this campaign has raised the stakes, ratcheting up anxiety and tension, meaning the aftermath of this election could be explosive. We are expecting legal challenges and street protests would be a surprise to no one.

This is a nation split between opposing visions of what's at stake. But it is in the polling stations that Red and Blue America will meet and be counted.

Whatever the result, roughly one half of the country is about to discover that the other half has a completely different sense of what America requires.

For the losers, this will be a stinging realisation.

• SIMPLE GUIDE: How to win the electoral college
• EXPLAINER: What Harris or Trump would do in power
• GLOBAL: How this election could change the world
• IN PICS: Different lives of Harris and Trump
• POLLS: Who is winning the race for the White House?

When is the US presidential election?

Who are the candidates and how are they nominated?

What do Democrats and Republicans stand for?

How does the US presidential election work?

Who can vote in the US presidential election?

Who else is being elected in November?

When will we know who has won the election?

Spanish rescuers are focusing their search for missing people on underground garages and a multi-storey car park following last week's devastating floods in Valencia.

The death toll after a year's worth of rain fell in parts of the region last week now stands at 217.

A car park in the nearby town of Aldaia capable of holding thousands of vehicles, has become central to the search, but rescue teams have reportedly not yet found any bodies.

It comes as Spain's State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) placed part of the north-eastern Catalonia region on red alert for torrential rain, with its capital Barcelona experiencing flooding on Monday morning.

The car park at the Bonaire shopping centre in Aldaia was inundated during flash floods last week.

According to Spanish news agency Europa Press, police have confirmed that search teams did not locate any victims in the first 50 vehicles inspected at the site.

The storm caught many victims in their vehicles on roads and in underground spaces such as car parks, tunnels and garages where rescue operations are particularly difficult.

On Monday, the family of a missing British couple in their 70s confirmed they had been found dead in their car days after flash flooding hit the region.

There has been anger at a perceived lack of warning and insufficient support from authorities after the floods.

On Sunday, the king and queen of Spain were pelted with mud and other objects by angry protesters during a visit to the town of Paiporta - one of the worst-affected in Valencia.

Objects were also thrown at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who was quickly evacuated.

The Civil Guard has opened an investigation into the chaotic scenes, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska told public broadcaster TVE.

He blamed "marginal groups" for instigating the violence where mud spattered the monarchs' face and clothes.

Local authorities in Valencia have extended travel restrictions for another two days to facilitate the work of the emergency services, cancelled school classes and urged people to work from home.

In Catalonia, train services have been suspended due to adverse weather conditions, while footage shared online appears to show vehicles submerged in floodwater on roads.

“We can turn this around in one term.”

So said the new Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, to staff at Conservative Campaign Headquarters - in other words, she can win the next general election.

Psychologically, she has to say that and she has to believe it, for why else would someone take on the job of Leader of the Opposition?

Granted, candidates for leader run when they think it is their time – the opportunity may never come around again – but they also have to believe the often thankless slog of opposition is worth it, because turfing out the government is possible.

The arithmetic of doing so – recovering from the Conservatives’ worst ever election defeat and overturning a Himalayan Labour majority – looks a tall order, but so volatile is the electorate you never know.

And so, next for Badenoch, the business of making senior appointments.

Reshuffles are always something of a nightmare for leaders as they are guaranteed deliverers of disappointment and deflated egos as well as sources of smiles and preferment.

But three factors make this one particularly tricky for the new Tory leader.

Firstly, numbers.

There are only 121 Conservative MPs and almost as many shadow ministerial roles to fill, if she wants to man-mark every single minister in government with their own shadow.

One potential solution to this is to ask some junior shadow ministers to shadow more than one brief, but that involves asking them to take on even more work.

And the number is not really 121 because there are those MPs who have said they want to be backbenchers, such as former leader Rishi Sunak, former deputy leader Sir Oliver Dowden, former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and former Home Secretary and leadership contender James Cleverly for a start.

Then there are those who are chairing select committees and so cannot serve on their party’s frontbench.

And then there are those the leadership would not want to appoint in a million years.

Suddenly, the numbers are getting tight and that is before you offer someone a job and they turn it down and so, implicitly at least, threaten not to serve at all – and that has happened too.

Secondly, the power of patronage.

When you are prime minister, you can pick up the phone and offer real power.

Doing stuff, taking decisions, being in government.

When you are leader of the opposition, you pick up the phone and offer the worthy, democratically vital but ultimately much less appealing role of being a shadow minister.

And thirdly, there is Kemi Badenoch’s authority over her parliamentary party.

She was the first choice for leader of just 35% of Conservative MPs and 57% of party members who voted in the leadership race.

A win is a win, but neither endorsement was emphatic.

All three of these factors swirl as she picks her top team.

What to do with the guy who came second is a perennial challenge for new leaders.

In this instance, what to offer Robert Jenrick and what might he accept?

Word reaches me that there was quite the back-and-forth between Badenoch and Jenrick.

He was offered shadow health secretary, shadow housing secretary, shadow work and pensions secretary, and shadow justice secretary, I am told.

He was not offered shadow foreign secretary.

For a little while on Monday, he did not say yes to any of the jobs he was offered, stewing over whether they were appealing, senior enough or might box him in too much politically.

One Tory source, not close to the leadership, told me: “Kemi just doesn’t like Rob. She thinks his whole schtick about her and whether she has any policies has done her lasting damage with the Right and with Reform voters. This is only likely to further unravel.”

Half an hour or so later, those around Jenrick made it known he had accepted becoming shadow justice secretary, that “the party needs to come together” and that “unity could not be more important”.

But they are not exactly a nest of birds singing in perfect harmony.

Perhaps the biggest appointment of all is shadow chancellor, particularly in the aftermath of a budget that has done much to define how Labour appears to want to approach its early years in office.

Mel Stride is a former cabinet minister, a former minister in the Treasury and a former chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, so it is a brief he is familiar with.

And then there is the decision to make Dame Priti Patel the shadow foreign secretary.

Dame Priti is a long-standing and pretty well-known senior Conservative who has served in government at the highest level as home secretary.

But she is also someone who found herself prematurely out of government back in 2017 after it emerged, extraordinarily, that she had run a freelance foreign policy operation while on holiday in Israel.

Baroness May, who was then prime minister, was furious and Dame Priti resigned before she was fired.

One senior Conservative got in touch with me to claim that Badenoch, in appointing Patel, had "destroyed within 48 hours any chance she had of having a respectable foreign policy”.

Ouch.

No one said opposition was easy.

And these are just the criticisms from Badenoch’s own side.

Elon Musk's political group has been deciding who receives $1m (£772,000) in its election giveaway, and not been choosing winners randomly, a lawyer representing the billionaire said on Monday.

One of Donald Trump's biggest supporters in the election, Musk has offered the sum to registered voters in swing states through his America PAC, in what many believed was a lottery-style contest.

Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner called the giveaway "an illegal lottery" when he sued Musk and the group last month.

But Musk's lawyer Chris Gober told a Pennsylvania judge that the group selects the recipients, according to media reports. The judge later ruled that the giveaway can continue.

Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta did not immediately give a reason for the ruling, made a few hours after the hearing, according to the Associated Press.

America PAC has been awarding $1m to a voter in one of the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina each day in the leadup to Election Day.

Before the court hearing, the group announced a man named Joshua in Arizona was awarded the money for Monday.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, which Musk owns, the group added: "Every day until Election Day, a person who signs will be selected to earn $1m as a spokesperson for America PAC".

Gober told the court that America PAC has already determined the final recipient who will be announced on Election Day and who is from Michigan, US media reported.

“The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance,” Gober said, according to the Associated Press. “We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow.”

But when the world's richest man unveiled the giveaway last month, many believed it was a random drawing for registered voters who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution.

“We are going to be awarding $1m randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election," Musk told a campaign event.

A few days later, the US Justice Department warned that the group could be breaking election laws, which forbid paying people to register to vote. Krasner's office then sued to stop it.

Musk has been aggressively campaigning for Trump in swing states across the country, and his committee has been pushing hard in Pennsylvania, where polls suggest Trump is in a tie with Vice-President Kamala Harris, a Democrat.

A lawyer in Krasner's office told Reuters that Gober's comments in court are "a complete admission of liability".

During the hearing, prosecutors played a video where Musk, who is also the chief executive of SpaceX, said that "all we ask" is that the winners serve as spokespeople for the group, Reuters reported.

But Chris Young, the director of America PAC, said in court that the recipients are screened and must have values aligned with the group, US media reported.

Those who receive the money sign non-disclosure agreements that block them from publicly discussing the terms of their contracts, according to Reuters.

Musk did not attend Monday's hearing.

Spanish rescuers are focusing their search for missing people on underground garages and a multi-storey car park following last week's devastating floods in Valencia.

The death toll after a year's worth of rain fell in parts of the region last week now stands at 217.

A car park in the nearby town of Aldaia capable of holding thousands of vehicles, has become central to the search, but rescue teams have reportedly not yet found any bodies.

It comes as Spain's State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) placed part of the north-eastern Catalonia region on red alert for torrential rain, with its capital Barcelona experiencing flooding on Monday morning.

The car park at the Bonaire shopping centre in Aldaia was inundated during flash floods last week.

According to Spanish news agency Europa Press, police have confirmed that search teams did not locate any victims in the first 50 vehicles inspected at the site.

The storm caught many victims in their vehicles on roads and in underground spaces such as car parks, tunnels and garages where rescue operations are particularly difficult.

On Monday, the family of a missing British couple in their 70s confirmed they had been found dead in their car days after flash flooding hit the region.

There has been anger at a perceived lack of warning and insufficient support from authorities after the floods.

On Sunday, the king and queen of Spain were pelted with mud and other objects by angry protesters during a visit to the town of Paiporta - one of the worst-affected in Valencia.

Objects were also thrown at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who was quickly evacuated.

The Civil Guard has opened an investigation into the chaotic scenes, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska told public broadcaster TVE.

He blamed "marginal groups" for instigating the violence where mud spattered the monarchs' face and clothes.

Local authorities in Valencia have extended travel restrictions for another two days to facilitate the work of the emergency services, cancelled school classes and urged people to work from home.

In Catalonia, train services have been suspended due to adverse weather conditions, while footage shared online appears to show vehicles submerged in floodwater on roads.

Scientists believe they have found a quirky way to fight mosquito-spread diseases such as dengue, yellow fever and Zika - by turning male insects deaf so they struggle to mate and breed.

Mosquitoes have sex while flying in mid-air and the males rely on hearing to chase down a female, based on her attractive wingbeats.

The researchers did an experiment, altering a genetic pathway that male mosquitoes use for this hearing. The result - they made no physical contact with females, even after three days in the same cage.

Female mosquitoes are the ones that spread diseases to people, and so trying to prevent them having babies would help reduce overall numbers.

The team from the University of California, Irvine studied Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which spread viruses to around 400 million people a year.

They closely observed the insects' aerial mating habits - that can last between a few seconds to just under a minute - and then figured out how to disrupt it using genetics.

They targeted a protein called trpVa that appears to be essential for hearing.

In the mutated mosquitoes, neurons normally involved in detecting sound showed no response to the flight tones or wingbeats of potential mates.

The alluring noise fell on deaf ears.

In contrast, wild (non-mutant) males were quick to copulate, multiple times, and fertilised nearly all the females in their cage.

The researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, who have published their work in the journal PNAS, said the effect of the gene knock-out was "absolute", as mating by deaf males was entirely eliminated.

Dr Joerg Albert, from the University of Oldenburg in Germany, is an expert on mosquito mating and I asked him what he made of the research.

He said attacking sense of sound was a promising route for mosquito control, but it needed to be studied and managed.

"The study provides a first direct molecular test, which suggests that hearing is indeed not only important for mosquito reproduction but essential.

"Without the ability of males to hear - and acoustically chase - female mosquitoes might become extinct."

Another method being explored is releasing sterile males in areas where there are pockets of mosquito-spread diseases, he added.

Although mosquitoes can carry diseases, they are an important part of the food chain - as nourishment for fish, birds, bats and frogs, for example - and some are important pollinators.

The government has announced plans to make it illegal to smoke in children's playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals in England, with some places also becoming vape-free.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is already an offence to smoke on NHS hospital grounds.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill would also make it impossible for anyone currently aged 15 or under to buy cigarettes - something the previous government had planned - and give more powers to restrict vape flavours, displays and packaging.

A ban on the sale of single-use disposable vapes from next June in England and Wales has already been announced.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the government was taking "bold action" to create a smoke-free generation, "clamp down on kids getting hooked on nicotine through vapes" and protect the vulnerable from the dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke.

Plans include extending the indoor smoking ban to certain outdoor settings, such as schools and hospitals, to protect children and the most vulnerable.

But the government has rowed back on plans to ban smoking in gardens of pubs and bars in England.

It said it was considering outdoor vaping bans too in some places.

The proposals will all be open to public debate over the coming months.

Under the bill, shops would have to obtain a licence in order to sell tobacco, vape and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

This would mean on-the-spot fines of £200 for retailers selling unregulated products or to people aged under 18.

A registration system for retailers selling these products has been in place in Scotland since 2017.

Smoking puts huge pressure on the NHS. It kills 80,000 people a year in the UK and is responsible for one in four of all deaths from cancer.

It also increases the risk of many illnesses including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, asthma and dementia.

The government said smoking also cost the economy £18bn a year in lost productivity, with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick.

Health charities have welcomed the bill, which will be subject to consultation for the next six months.

Action on Smoking and Health said it would help create a country where young people would never start smoking.

“It is important to have the debate about how we will protect children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoke," said the charity's chair, Prof Nick Hopkinson.

He added: "A key next step is for the government to set out further how it will help the UK’s six million smokers to quit. This will require a properly funded plan, paid for by a levy on tobacco companies.”

Dr Charmaine Griffiths, British Heart Foundation chief executive, said she welcomed the government's commitment to protect children and vulnerable people from second-hand smoke in schools, playgrounds and hospital grounds.

"We also welcome measures to make vaping less appealing to young people," she said.

Shoplifting is at "unacceptable" levels and not being tackled properly, a Lords inquiry has found.

The crime is seriously underreported and the problem is so urgent police forces need to take "immediate action", according to the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

It says retailers need to be able to report crimes more easily, more funding is needed for offender rehabilitation, and regulations should be introduced to make it more difficult to sell stolen goods online anonymously.

The Home Office said it was making assaults on shopworkers a criminal offence and deploying "thousands" of police officers dedicated to tackling shoplifting.

The Lords committee held an inquiry into tackling shoplifting in which it heard evidence from police chiefs, retailers and industry experts in May and September.

In a letter published today, it said there were more than 443,000 incidents of shop theft recorded by police in March 2024 – the highest ever since records began 20 years ago.

But they were "a drop in the ocean" when compared with likely real figures estimated at 17 million annually – which has "devastating consequences for businesses and families".

Shop theft has evolved from "individualised offending to relentless, large-scale, organised operations accompanied by unprecedented levels of violence", it added.

Tracey Robertson, co-owner of Paw Prints – a small chain of pet shops across Yorkshire – says shoplifting costs her business around £8,000 a year.

"It’s a financial impact on a family business. It’s bad in the fact that it affects the staff that work for us because sometimes it’s aggressive and violent," she said.

The committee supported schemes like Project Pegasus - a partnership between retailers and police to tackle organised shoplifting gangs - but said there needs to be a strategy to deal with local prolific offenders too.

"The scale of the shop theft problem within England and Wales is totally unacceptable and action, like that under way in the Pegasus scheme, is vital and urgent," said Lord Foster of Bath, chair of the committee.

The committee found there is a widespread perception that shop theft is not treated seriously by the police which "risks undermining confidence in the police and wider criminal justice system".

It said shoplifting cost the retail sector nearly £2bn last year – which resulted in price rises impacting individuals, families and communities.

"We acknowledge the pressures on police resources, but we believe that the urgency of the situation relating to shop theft requires immediate action within existing police staffing levels," the letter said.

It has made a series of recommendations to the government which it says would "help tackle the problem and keep the public and our economy safer".

These include:

• Phasing out the use of the outdated term "shoplifting" which serves to trivialise the severity of the offence
• Developing improved reporting systems to enable retailers to report crime to the police quickly and easily
• Increasing funding to community-based reoffending and rehabilitation initiatives
• Introducing regulations to make it more difficult to sell stolen goods on online marketplaces anonymously
• Introducing regulations and best practice guidance for the use of facial recognition technology by private companies

Shop owner Tracey Robertson believes the recommendations do not go far enough and wants to see much tougher sentences for repeat offenders.

Professor of criminology Emmeline Taylor, who gave evidence to the inquiry, said the committee recommendations are "far-reaching" and understand the multiple root causes of shop theft.

"If adopted by the police, the industry and the government it will certainly do a huge amount to begin to turn the tide on the tsunamic of shop theft that has impacted the retail sector across the UK."

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said it welcomed the report which further highlights the significant impact retail crime has on its victims.

"We are doing all we can to reduce thefts and pursue offenders, especially those prolific and habitual offenders, who cause misery within the community," said Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman, the NPCC’s lead for acquisitive crime.

The Home Office said it understands the "devastating impact" of shop theft has on communities.

A spokesperson added: "We are taking immediate action through our commitment to scrap the £200 shop theft threshold, and making assaults on shop workers a criminal offence.

"We will also put thousands more dedicated police officers on our streets, and establish a Retail Crime Forum for retailers to confidently implement tactics against shop theft."