Trump officials are expected to link the use of pain reliever Tylenol in pregnant women to autism, according to US media reports.

At an Oval Office event on Monday, the US president will reportedly advise pregnant women in the US to only take Tylenol, known as paracetamol elsewhere, to relieve high fevers.

At the Charlie Kirk memorial service on Sunday, Trump said he had an "amazing" announcement coming on autism, saying it was "out of control" but they might now have a reason why.

Some studies have shown a link between pregnant women taking Tylenol and autism, but these findings are inconsistent and do not prove the drug causes autism.

Tylenol is a popular brand of pain relief medication sold in the United States, Canada and some other countries. Its active ingredient is acetaminophen, which is called paracetamol outside North America.

Tylenol maker Kenvue has defended the use of the drug in pregnant women.

In a statement to the BBC, it said: "We believe independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism. We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers."

Acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women, it added, and without it, women face a dangerous choice between suffering through conditions like fever or use riskier alternatives.

The BBC has contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for comment.

In April, the leader of HHS, Robert F Kennedy Jr, pledged "a massive testing and research effort" to determine the cause of autism in five months.

But experts have cautioned that finding the causes of autism - a complex syndrome that has been researched for decades - would not be simple.

The widely held view of researchers is that there is no single cause of autism, which is thought to be the result of a complex mix of genetic and environmental factors.

• Tylenol-maker shares hit after report of autism link

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said doctors across the country have consistently identified Tylenol as one of the only safe pain relievers for pregnant women.

"[S]tudies that have been conducted in the past, show no clear evidence that proves a direct relationship between the prudent use of acetaminophen during any trimester and fetal developmental issues," the group has said.

The drug is recommended by other major medical groups as well as other governments around the world.

In August, a review of research led by the dean of Harvard University's Chan School of Public Health found that children may be more likely to develop autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders when exposed to Tylenol during pregnancy.

The researchers argued some steps should be taken to limit use of the drug, but said the pain reliever was still important for treating maternal fever and pain, which can also have negative effects for children.

But another study, published in 2024, found no relationship between exposure to Tylenol and autism.

"There is no robust evidence or convincing studies to suggest there is any causal relationship," said Monique Botha, a professor in social and developmental psychology at Durham University.

Dr Botha added that pain relief for pregnant women was "woefully lacking", with Tylenol being one of the only safe options for the population.

Autism diagnoses have increased sharply since 2000, and by 2020 the rate among 8-year-olds reached 2.77%, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Scientists attribute at least part of the rise to increased awareness of autism and an expanding definition of the disorder. Researchers have also been investigating environmental factors.

In the past, Kennedy has offered debunked theories about the rising rates of autism, blaming vaccines despite a lack of evidence.

British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abdel Fattah has been freed and reunited with his family after almost six years of imprisonment in Egypt.

One of the country's most prominent political prisoners, he was pardoned by President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi on Monday, reportedly after a request from the National Council for Human Rights.

Video of the blogger and pro-democracy activist, 43, at home after his release shows him grinning widely and jumping up and down as he celebrates with his sister and mother.

Laila Soueif, who went on extensive hunger strike during her son's imprisonment, said on his release: "Despite our great joy, the biggest joy is when there are no [political] prisoners."

Abdel Fattah was released from Wadi al-Natrun prison late on Monday and celebrated reuniting with his family at his mother's apartment in Giza.

"I cannot yet comprehend that this is real," his sister Sanaa Seif said.

The activist was arrested in 2019 during a crackdown on dissent and sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted of "spreading false news" for sharing a post about a prisoner dying of torture.

Two weeks ago, Sisi ordered the authorities to study the NCHR's petitions for the release of Abdel Fattah and six others, which the institution said it had submitted "in light of the humanitarian and health conditions experienced by [their] families".

His family said he should have been released in September 2024 but the two years he spent in pre-trial detention were not counted as time served by Egyptian authorities.

When Abdel Fattah was not released at the end of his five-year sentence, his mother Laila Soueif started an extensive hunger strike to call for his release.

She was hospitalised at St Thomas' Hospital in London and came close to death twice during the 287-day strike, which ended on 14 July after then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy told Parliament he "expected [Abdel Fattah] to be released" on 25 June.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had previously said he would secure Abdel Fattah's freedom and there has been widespread cross-parliamentary support for his release.

It is unclear if Abdel Fattah will be able to travel to the UK to be with his son, though his sister said on his release that his release would "feel more real" when "his son arrives here from travelling".

The activist first rose to prominence during the 2011 uprising in Egypt that forced long-time President Hosni Mubarak to resign.

He has spent most of his time in prison since 2014, the year after Sisi led the military's overthrow of Egypt's first democratically elected president, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi.

Sisi has overseen what human rights groups say is an unprecedented crackdown on dissent that has led to the detention of tens of thousands of people.

Although Abdel Fattah acquired British citizenship in 2021, Egypt has never allowed him a consular visit by British diplomats.

In May, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - a panel of independent human rights experts – found that Abdel Fattah had been arbitrarily arrested for exercising his right to freedom of expression, had not been given a fair trial and had remained in detention for his political opinions.

According to the panel, the Egyptian government said he had been afforded "all fair trial rights" and that his sentence would be completed in January 2027.

"At what point did we become North Korea?" That was the question Nigel Farage posed when asked by a US congressional committee about limitations on freedom of speech in the UK.

He was condemning the "awful authoritarian situation we have sunk into", which he claimed had led to various arrests including that of Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan over his views on challenging "a trans-identified male" in "a female-only space".

When I heard the question, I confess I thought that the leader of Reform UK had gone over the top.

Farage was comparing his country - my country - with a brutal dictatorship that murders, imprisons and tortures opponents.

And he was doing it in front of an influential audience of American lawmakers.

When I interviewed his deputy, Richard Tice on Radio 4's Today, I asked him whether he really believed that UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was the same as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Three times I asked the question. Three times Tice swerved it, suggesting Farage was simply using "an analogy".

But Farage is not alone in questioning how far restrictions to freedom of speech have gone in the UK.

Tensions around the limits of free speech are nothing new and since the advent of social media in the mid-2000s, the arguments have been simmering.

Now, though, they're reaching a boiling point.

During his recent visit, US Vice-President JD Vance said he did not want the UK to go down a "very dark path" of losing free speech.

The US business magazine Forbes carried an editorial this month that took this argument further still.

In it, editor-in-chief Steve Forbes condemned the UK's "plunge into the kind of speech censorship usually associated with tin pot Third World dictatorships".

He argues that, in stark contrast to the United States - where free speech is protected by the first amendment to the constitution, "the UK has, with increasing vigour, been curbing what one is allowed to say, all in the name of fighting racism, sexism, Islamophobia, transgenderism, climate-change denial and whatever else the woke extremists conjure up".

So, how exactly did we get to the point where the UK is being compared to a dictatorship and, given how inflamed the conversation has become, what - if anything - would it take to turn down the heat?

Big tech dialled up the debate

The case of Lucy Connolly has become a cause celebre to some in the UK and beyond.

The former childminder from Northampton, who is married to a Conservative councillor, had posted an abhorrent message on X, calling for people to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers following the murder of three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024.

It was viewed hundreds of thousands of times at a time when the threat of violence was very real.

Connolly had pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing "threatening or abusive" written material on X. And yet she was given the red carpet treatment at the Reform party conference, as "Britain's favourite political prisoner".

The length of her prison sentence - 31 months although she only served 40% before she was released - was questioned by many, including people who were appalled by what she had written.

It is just one case that highlights how much social media has changed the shape of the debate around free speech and made heroes and villains of ordinary people.

And I use the word "ordinary" deliberately because views similar to Connolly's will have been expressed up and down the land by others who might well have said, as she now does, "I was an idiot".

But while it's unlikely that any action would have been taken had she said what she did in a coffee shop or a bar, the fact she posted it on social media changed things.

What's more, big tech firms have changed their approach in recent years.

After Musk bought Twitter, which he re-named X, he changed content moderation, which he regards as "a propaganda word for censorship" - and he talks a lot about people spreading "the woke mind virus".

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has also changed the rules governing Meta and Instagram.

In the case of Connolly, her post was "accelerated by the algorithm" and spread far more widely, according to Lilian Edwards, an emeritus professor at Newcastle University.

Dilemma around policing speech

The arrest of Graham Linehan at Heathrow, too, raised further questions around policing freedom of speech - and put the way issues are handled under renewed scrutiny.

Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Mark Rowley has voiced his own concerns. "It's a nonsense to pretend that with all of the (online) content out there that enforcement is the answer to that," he has said.

What these cases both illustrate is the lack of consensus about what can and should be policed online in the UK, and by who.

And a lack of consensus too about how we can set apart the unpleasant, offensive, ugly and hateful things said online from those that are genuinely threatening or dangerous.

In the UK, the Human Rights Act does give protection to free speech but as a "qualified right".

This means that "governments can restrict that right… provided that the response is proportionate - [or] 'necessary in a democratic society' is what people tend to say", according to Lorna Woods, professor of internet law at the University of Essex.

But some of the comments made at the protest in London earlier this month, billed by far-right, anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson as a "free speech rally," demonstrate that, despite other controversies, that right isn't that qualified.

Like nailing jelly to the wall

"Violence is coming" and "you either fight back or die", the billionaire X owner Elon Musk told flag-waving protesters via video link.

Along with his call for the overthrow of the government, some might argue that his words at the rally were an incitement to violence.

But the UK's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the barrister Jonathan Hall KC, has said that Musk's words would not have broken the law.

"Politicians use martial language all the time, don't they?" he told BBC Radio 4's Today. "Metaphors such as fights and struggles are pretty normal. And he was talking about it contingently, wasn't he? He wasn't saying: 'Go out immediately.'"

Yet the fact both men were able to address a huge crowd in London is perhaps evidence that there is rather more leeway for free speech in this country than those likening the UK to a "tin pot dictatorship" suggest.

According to Essex University's Prof Lorna Woods, the lowest level of views that can be prosecuted in British criminal law are those deemed "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

These are concepts that few people without a law degree could easily define, let alone agree upon.

It is the job of the police initially, but ultimately the courts, to try to nail that particular piece of jelly to the wall.

The UK is "out of whack" with other countries, according to Sir Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister who later became right-hand man to Zuckerberg. He believes the UK needs to "think long and hard" about "whether we've overdone it" on policing speech.

"Surely part of the definition of being in a free society is people say ghastly things, offensive things, awful things, ugly things, and we don't sweep them under the carpet," he has said.

Free speech versus 'me speech'

What the British public want is another story.

Earlier this month, in a survey by YouGov, 5,035 British adults were asked what was most important when it came to online behaviour: 28% said it was that people were able to express themselves freely but 61% prioritised keeping them safe from threats and abuse.

"People tend to prefer safety to free speech [online]," argues Anthony Wells, a director at YouGov.

What's more, there seems to be a generational divide.

In my conversations with young people in their 20s and 30s - the age of my own children - I often hear the view that far from being an ideal to be strived for, free speech is the cause of much of the anger, division and fear they live with every day.

In recent years a "cancel culture" has emerged in which those with "unacceptable" views can be hounded out of their jobs, no platformed as speakers or intimidated as students.

Even back in 2021, a YouGov poll of Britons found that a majority of those surveyed - some 57% - had sometimes stopped themselves from expressing political or social views because of the fear of being judged or negative responses.

For those who believe that free speech is under threat in the country, these figures can be used as evidence that decades of political correctness has had a chilling effect on people's ability to express their opinions.

"Our definitions of what constitutes hate speech, and I think a very broadened definition of what constitutes harm, is meaning that people feel like they are walking on eggshells and they're frightened - not just that they'll have the police around, but that they'll be cancelled if they say the wrong thing," the former Brexit Party MEP Baroness Claire Fox told the BBC's The World Tonight.

But dig deeper and this debate, like so much else, is also about politics and the deepening and, increasingly, angry and violent divisions in our society.

What can America teach us?

Even with its constitutional protection for free speech, plenty in the UK question what basis Americans have to lecture Britain on free speech, given the arguments they are having back at home.

The anger and division sparked by the assassination of the conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk in Utah this month ramped up the debate further on that side of the Atlantic over where the boundaries should lie between what is offensive, hateful and dangerous.

Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi appalled many conservatives when she declared that, "There's free speech and then there's hate speech".

It seemed to take her into precisely the territory, which has caused so many problems here in the UK.

President Trump himself has threatened to sue the New York Times for $15bn (£11bn) over what he calls defamation and libel, adding to the long list of media outlets he has taken to the courts over stories - the newspaper has called it "intimidation tactics" - and he celebrated the sacking of the late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel as "great news for America".

The US historian Tim Snyder, who is an outspoken public critic of the direction America is heading under Trump believes that free speech should be distinguished from what he calls "me speech".

"Me speech is a common practice among rich and influential Americans," writes Mr Snyder. "Practitioners of me speech use the phrase free speech quite a bit.

"But what they mean is free speech for themselves. They want a monopoly on it.

"They believe that they are right about everything, and so they should always have giant platforms, in real life or on social media.

"The people with whom they disagree, however, should be called out and intimidated in an organised way on social media, or subjected to algorithmic discrimination so that their voices are not heard."

As much about listening

This issue is one I've felt strongly about for as long as I can remember. My grandparents knew first hand what it was to be persecuted for who you were and what you thought or said. They were German Jews who fled the Nazis for what then was the relative security of China and later had to flee the Communists there.

As a child, I recall watching in reverential silence as each day, after lunch, my grandfather held a huge radio on his lap and turned the dial, skipping stations until he found the BBC World Service. There, he had learned, he would find news he could trust and speech which was free of political control.

So important was this to him that he had risked hiding with his wife and daughter (my mother) in a cupboard in their home in Shanghai to listen to it on a banned shortwave radio.

That is why I find any comparison between the UK and a dictatorship a little hard to swallow.

What I learned as the grandchild of those who had fled not one but two murderous ideologies was that free speech was about listening as much as talking.

What mattered above all else is being able to hear both sides of an argument and learn the facts behind them - without having that information controlled by governments, rich and powerful media owners, or anyone else.

Nick Robinson is presenter of BBC Radio 4's Today programme and Political Thinking.

Top image credit: Carlos Jasso / Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Staff at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) will be out of work for at least another week as the business secretary prepares to meet suppliers of the car maker who are at risk of closure.

JLR's production lines ground to a halt in late August following a major cyber attack, and fears are growing that the company's suppliers could go bust without support.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle will visit JLR to meet firms in the supply chain for the beleaguered carmaker.

JLR said in a statement on Tuesday that it would not be resuming production until October 1 at the earliest, an extension from the previous date of September 24.

"Our focus remains on supporting our customers, suppliers, colleagues, and our retailers who remain open," the statement said.

"We fully recognise this is a difficult time for all connected with JLR and we thank everyone for their continued support and patience."

Industry minister Chris McDonald said he was visiting JLR alongside the business secretary to "host companies in the supply chain, to listen to workers and hear how we can support them and help get production back online."

He said in a statement: "We have two priorities, helping Jaguar Land Rover get back up and running as soon as possible and the long-term health of the supply chain.

"We are acutely aware of the difficulties the stoppage is causing for those suppliers and their staff, many of whom are already taking a financial hit through no fault of their own - and we will do everything we can to reassure them that the government is on their side."

Suppliers are anxious to be heard, according to Johnathan Dudley, the head of manufacturing for accounting and consulting firm Crowe UK. The firm is based in the West Midlands, which is where the Solihull and Wolverhampton plants are.

"Obviously, they're being very, very cautious because they don't want to create panic, and equally, they don't want to be seen to be criticizing people further up the chain," he said.

"It's not a blame game, but it is a cry for help, because there are businesses now seeing people not paying [staff]."

The halt in production had hit profits by about £120m already, and £1.7bn in lost revenue, according to David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics at the University of Birmingham.

The UK government should offer discount visas to US cancer scientists who have had their research cancelled by the Trump administration, Sir Ed Davey will say.

"The UK should step up and say: If Trump won't back this research, we will," the Liberal Democrat leader will say in a speech to his party's conference in Bournemouth on Tuesday.

He will propose the setting up of a fellowship scheme for US scientists seeking to escape the US government's "anti-science agenda".

The Lib Dem leader has stepped up his attacks on the US president this week and accused Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of wanting to turn the UK into "Trump's America".

His staunch criticism of Farage, President Trump and his allies is expected to be a big theme of Sir Ed's keynote speech on the final day of his party's conference.

In February, the US government cut billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures.

The US government said it was "vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overheads".

At the time, the boss of the American Society of Clinical Oncology said the move "would be devastating to the pace and progress of cancer research in America".

"Slashing federal research funding at a time when science is revolutionising cancer care risks leaving millions of patients without the promise and potential of life-saving breakthroughs," said Clifford Hudis.

According to a poll conducted by the Nature journal, 75% of its readers were considering leaving the US and heading to Europe or Canada as a result of the actions of Trump.

The Liberal Democrats have not set out what level of discounts the UK government should offer to researchers wanting to come to the UK. Costs to purchase a visa can exceed £1,000.

In his conference speech, Sir Ed will argue that the UK should be "stepping into the vacuum left by Trump's anti-science agenda - leading the world in the fight against cancer".

The Liberal Democrat leader is also expected to criticise Reform UK party members for applauding a US decision to cut research for mRNA vaccines.

Twenty-two projects had been examining how the vaccine technology could counter viruses such as bird flu.

Sir Ed will say: "It is hard to express the cruelty and stupidity of cutting off research into medicine that has the power to save so many lives."

In addition to criticising Trump, Sir Ed has also been increasingly vocal in his attacks on the billionaire and former Trump ally Elon Musk.

On Sunday, he called on the UK's communications regulator Ofcom to "go after" Musk over "crimes" he claims are being committed on the tech mogul's social media platform X.

Sir Ed has also accused Musk of "inciting violence" when he addressed a rally in London via video link. In response, the X owner called the Liberal Democrat leader a "craven coward".

Asked by Sky News if he was worried about legal threats from Musk, Sir Ed said: "If he ... sues me, let's see how he fares, because I don't think he'll win."

The Lib Dems have become well known for their political stunts alongside a policy offer focused on social care and other priorities under Sir Ed's leadership.

It brought them success at last year's general election, with the party winning 72 seats in the House of Commons - its highest ever share.

But the Lib Dems have struck a more serious tone at this year's conference, as the party considers it's next move ahead of local elections next year.

On the opening night of the conference, former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron draped himself in a flag and called on members to "reclaim patriotism" from the far right.

Farron told a hall full of activists to "stop being so flaming squeamish and English" and reclaim the UK's flags from groups who seek to "divide and destroy".

Unusually for the Lib Dems, they have gone out of their way to claim that they are the true patriots, in contrast to Farage, who they have dubbed a "plastic patriot".

In an interview with the BBC, Sir Ed said his party has a moral duty to keep Farage and his Reform UK party out of power.

Making a claim to an insurance company can be worse than the distress of the original incident, according to Which?, as it launches a rare type of action against the sector.

The group's super-complaint - which is an action by a consumer body on customers' behalf - says the home and travel insurance sectors are "broken".

Which? highlighted cases including an insurer initially refusing to pay out for a cancelled holiday, because the trip had technically started before the flight was turned back after two hours.

The insurers' trade body said providers worked hard to help customers, handle claims efficiently, and had paid out many millions of pounds.

Rocio Concha, director of policy at Which?, said that serious failings in the travel and home insurance markets had been "tolerated for too long" by the insurance industry and the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

"We have heard heartbreaking stories from people who have found the experience of dealing with an insurance company worse than the distressing life events that led to their claim," she said.

She added that a super-complaint was "a major intervention". Such a move is rare, and only used by consumer advocates when they believe a large number of consumers are being significantly harmed by practises across a particular sector.

Refused insurance claims

Millions of people across the UK take out insurance policies they hope they will never need to draw on.

Estimates suggest around 30 million people have buildings and contents insurance, with a similar number buying either annual or single-trip travel cover during last year.

Which? said that 99% of car insurance claims were upheld, but acceptance rates fell to 63% of buildings insurance claims and 80% of travel insurance claims.

It pointed to the case of Yvette Greenley, whose flight from Luton to Egypt was sent back owing to technical difficulties.

Mrs Greenley said the problem with the flight and a lack of alternatives meant her holiday to celebrate her 60th birthday with her sister, Beverley, was over. She cancelled her leave and went back to work.

While the airline refunded the cost of the ticket, the insurer initially refused the £140 claim for accommodation and travel to and from the airport because the holiday had begun.

"I was flummoxed, then fuming about it. They seemed to dismiss the fact that the plane turned around," she said.

The insurer later apologised, settled the claim and paid compensation.

In recent years, BBC News has reported cases including:

• A man whose home was damaged by Storm Darragh, but the insurer initially refused to pay for repairs because the windspeed was 2mph below its definition of a storm
• An insurer initially claiming a woman with a brain injury should be repatriated, against medical advice
• Charities warning some people with cancer being priced-out of travel insurance

Analysis of cases, in addition to surveys and research by Which? have led to the super-complaint that, by law, requires a response within 90 days.

'A number of failures'

The complaint is based on three areas of concern. The first is the way that claims are handled, with many being outsourced by insurers to specialists.

The second is the sales practices of insurers, which the consumer group argues are inappropriate and lead to widespread confusion over what is covered in a policy.

Finally, it accuses the FCA, as the regulator, of failing to provide an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

It has received support from James Daley, managing director of independent consumer group Fairer Finance.

"The FCA has only recently finished a number of studies looking at this market - and while it acknowledged a number of failures, it seems to have no appetite to tackle these," he said.

A spokesman for the FCA said it would respond to the super-complaint in due course, but had been "focused on raising standards".

"We uncovered issues when we recently reviewed insurers' home and travel claims handling. We'll be holding them and their senior managers accountable for the changes needed," he said.

They included issues over outsourcing and storm definitions.

The Association of British Insurers, which represents providers, said that its members worked hard to ensure customers knew the details of policies and handled claims as quickly and efficiently as possible.

"In the first half of this year alone, insurers have paid out over £1.7bn for more than 300,000 home insurance claims. Last year, travel insurers also paid out £472m across more than 500,000 claims," a spokeswoman said.

"We're working closely with the regulator to ensure good outcomes for customers and will engage with Which? to understand the details of its concerns."

The Guardian says Nigel Farage is facing cross-party condemnation for his proposals to deport some legal migrants if Reform UK wins the next election. The i Paper calls the idea both "radical" and "sketchy" while the Daily Mirror labels it "disastrous".

The Times says European sources have dismissed any prospect of downgrading the status of EU nationals who are resident in Britain and were given rights by the post-Brexit treaty: one diplomat asks, "Why would we agree to make EU nationals worse off than they are now?".

The Sun's editorial accepts there are some unanswered questions about the plan but says it is likely to prove popular with voters and that the government must "wake up" to the issues Reform is highlighting.

The Times says health officials in the UK have reassured pregnant women that paracetamol is safe to take, after US President Donald Trump said it was "not good" and linked to autism. The paper says scientists were "dismayed" by his comments and have pointed to a body of evidence refuting any link.

The Daily Telegraph says British experts condemned "fear-mongering".

The Daily Mail asks how the Royal family can continue to "indulge" the Duchess of York, after charities cut ties with her because of her links to Jeffrey Epstein. Its headline reads "Will the King now banish Fergie?"

The Times sets out how, "one by one, charities left the Duchess behind" yesterday. It says that what started as a trickle at lunchtime led to the dam bursting at teatime. The Mirror says Sarah Ferguson's life in the public eye now "lies in tatters".

The Telegraph leads with the call from a think tank with close ties to the government for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to cut national insurance and increase income tax in the Budget. The paper says the Resolution Foundation has often been the "petri dish" of Labour policy in recent years, and that the Treasury is packed with its former staff. It calls the idea a "£6bn raid on pensioners, landlords and the self-employed".

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