Football clubs should pay towards the £70 million cost of policing their matches in the UK, the head of the Metropolitan Police has told the BBC.
Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, the country's most senior police officer, asked why organisers of events that require policing to support their security do not pay for it, and said there should be "more of a polluter pays approach".
Sir Mark's comments came as he called for the creation of 12 to 15 bigger police forces as part of his plans for radical police reforms.
He told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme the current model of 43 forces across England and Wales needed to be reduced to cope with increased demand and overstretched funding.
Sir Mark said reforms would help police forces, including the Met, "make the best use of the money we've got".
As part of funding concerns, the commissioner also cited the £70 million cost of policing football in the UK, most of which is spent on Premier League matches in England.
"Why isn't the organiser paying for that, rather than local communities who lose their resources to go to football matches?" he said.
A move to make football clubs pay was previously suggested to the Times by the head of the UK's football policing unit and later criticised by sports bodies who said it could threaten events and lead to increased ticket prices.
Writing in the Sunday Times, Sir Mark suggested the number of police forces needed to be reduced by two-thirds and said bigger forces would be better able to utilise modern technology.
He added the 43-force model designed in the 1960s had not been "fit for purpose" for at least two decades and hindered "the effective confrontation of today's threats".
Speaking to the BBC, the commissioner referred to an "invisible spaghetti" behind police forces that was responsible for "sucking resources and costs".
"Lots of the smaller forces can't actually do all the services locally and they're having to club together and run complicated collaborations," he said, adding that with "bigger local forces and one national body" they could "cut away" with a lot of that cost and waste.
The commissioner was questioned by Kuenssberg on the likelihood of the reform going ahead, referencing similar Labour plans in 2006 which were dropped following significant opposition.
Sir Mark said reform was "essential", adding that spending on policing and public safety has dropped substantially over the last decade or more.
"I don't see that changing dramatically. We've got to make the best use of every pound the government can give to us," he added.
Put to him that he had warned he would have to de-prioritise some crimes, and asked what the force will not investigate, Sir Mark said: "So I don't want policing activity to fall off the list, and I know that the mayor and the home secretary have pushed hard for the most police funding that we can get.
"We are determined to improve day in and day out experiences of Londoners on the streets. We can only do that if we focus ruthlessly on police work."
Archaeologists have announced the discovery of an ancient city in Peru's northern Barranca province.
The 3,500-year-old city, named Peñico, is believed to have served as a key trading hub connecting early Pacific coast communities with those living in the Andes mountains and Amazon basin.
Located some 200km north of Lima, the site lies about 600 metres (1,970 feet) above sea level and is thought to have been founded between 1,800 and 1,500 BC - around the same time that early civilisations were flourishing in the Middle East and Asia.
Researchers say the discovery sheds light on what became of the Americas' oldest civilisation, the Caral.
Reuters
An aerial view of the archaeological zone of Peñico, in Peru, an ancient city established 3,500 years ago
Drone footage released by researchers shows a circular structure on a hillside terrace at the city's centre, surrounded by the remains of stone and mud buildings.
Eight years of research at the site unearthed 18 structures, including ceremonial temples and residential complexes.
In buildings at the site, researchers discovered ceremonial objects, clay sculptures of human and animal figures and necklaces made from beads and seashells.
Peñico is situated close to where Caral, recognised as the oldest known civilisation in the Americas, was established 5,000 years ago at around 3,000 BC in the Supe valley of Peru.
Caral features 32 monuments, including large pyramid structures, sophisticated irrigation agriculture and urban settlements. It is believed to have developed in isolation to other comparative early civilisations in India, Egypt, Sumeria and China.
Dr Ruth Shady, the archaeologist who led the recent research into Peñico and the excavation of Caral in the 1990s, said that the discovery was important for understanding what became of the Caral civilisation after it was decimated by climate change.
The Peñico community was "situated in a strategic location for trade, for exchange with societies from the coast, the highlands and the jungle", Dr Shady told the Reuters news agency.
At a news conference unveiling the findings on Thursday, archaeologist Marco Machacuay, a researcher with the Ministry of Culture, said that Peñico's significance lies in it being a continuation of the Caral society.
Peru is home to many of the Americas' most significant archaeological discoveries, including the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu in the Andes and the mysterious Nazca Lines etched into the desert along the central coast.
After two leaders of OneTaste were convicted, a judge referred to the aggressive publicity campaign on their behalf as she jailed them until their sentencing.
This picture of Renee Smajstrla was clicked at Camp Mystic on Thursday, her uncle wrote on Facebook
An eight-year-old girl and the director of an all-girls' summer camp are among the victims of flash floods in Texas that have claimed at least 43 lives, including 15 children.
Officials say most of the victims have been identified, though the identities of six adults and a child remain unknown. Authorities have not yet released any names publicly.
Here's what we know so far about the victims.
Renee Smajstrla
Eight-year-old Renee Smajstrla was at Camp Mystic when flooding swept through the summer camp for girls, her uncle said in a Facebook post.
"Renee has been found and while not the outcome we prayed for, the social media outreach likely assisted the first responders in helping to identify her so quickly," wrote Shawn Salta, of Maryland.
"We are thankful she was with her friends and having the time of her life, as evidenced by this picture from yesterday," he wrote. "She will forever be living her best life at Camp Mystic."
Camp Mystic, where 27 children are missing, is a nearly century-old Christian summer camp for girls on the banks of the Guadalupe River near Hunt, Texas.
Operated by generations of the same family since the 1930s, the camp's website bills itself as a place for girls to grow "spiritually" in a "wholesome" Christian atmosphere "to develop outstanding personal qualities and self-esteem".
Jane Ragsdale
Heart O' the Hills
Jane Ragsdale was described as the "heart and soul" of Heart O' the Hills camp
Heart O' the Hills is another all-girls' camp that sits along the Guadalupe River, and it was right in the path of Friday's flood.
Jane Ragsdale, described as the "heart and soul" of Heart O'Hills, "did not make it", a post shared on the camp's official website said on Saturday.
Ragsdale, who started off as a camper then a counsellor, became the director and co-owner of the camp in 1976.
"We are mourning the loss of a woman who influenced countless lives and was the definition of strong and powerful," the camp website post said.
Heart O' the Hills wasn't in session and "most of those who were on camp at the time have been accounted for and are on high ground", the statement said.
"Access to the site is difficult, and authorities are primarily focused on locating the missing and preventing further loss of life and property".
Sarah Marsh
Camp Mystic
Sarah Marsh, a student at Cherokee Bend Elementary School in Texas, would have entered third grade in August.
She, too, was attending Camp Mystic when the floods struck, and reported as missing along with about two dozen other campers.
Her grandmother, Debbie Ford Marsh, took to Facebook on Friday asking for prayers. Just hours later she shared online that her granddaughter was among the girls killed.
"We will always feel blessed to have had this beautiful spunky ray of light in our lives. She will live on in our hearts forever!" Ms Ford Marsh wrote on Facebook.
In a post on Facebook, Alabama Senator Katie Britt said she's "heartbroken over the loss of Sarah Marsh, and we are keeping her family in our thoughts and prayers during this unimaginable time".
Lila Bonner
Nine-year-old Lila Bonner, a Dallas native was found dead after flooding near Camp Mystic, according to NBC News.
"In the midst of our unimaginable grief, we ask for privacy and are unable to confirm any details at this time," her family said in a statement to the news outlet.
"We ache with all who loved her and are praying endlessly."
Israeli hostages' families took part in a rally in Tel Aviv to demand a deal that would see them all released
Israel has decided to send a delegation to Qatar on Sunday for proximity talks with Hamas on the latest proposal for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said he had accepted the invitation despite what he described as the "unacceptable" changes that Hamas wanted to make to a plan presented by mediators from Qatar, the US and Egypt.
On Friday night, Hamas said it had delivered a "positive response" to the proposal for a 60-day ceasefire and that it was ready for negotiations.
However, a Palestinian official said the group had sought amendments including a guarantee that hostilities would not resume if talks on a permanent truce failed.
In Gaza itself, the Hamas-run Civil Defence agency said Israeli strikes and gunfire killed at least 35 Palestinians on Saturday.
Seven people were killed, including a doctor and his three children, when tents in the al-Mawasi area were bombed, according to a hospital in the nearby city of Khan Younis.
Meanwhile, two American employees of the controversial aid distribution organisation backed by Israel and the US - the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) - were wounded in what it said was a grenade attack at its site in the Khan Younis area.
The Israeli and US governments both blamed Hamas, which has not commented.
Late on Saturday, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office said in a statement that "the changes that Hamas is seeking to make" to the ceasefire proposal were "unacceptable to Israel".
But it added: "In light of an assessment of the situation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has directed that the invitation to proximity talks be accepted and that the contacts for the return of our hostages - on the basis of the Qatari proposal that Israel has agreed to - be continued. The negotiating team will leave tomorrow."
Earlier, an Israeli official had briefed local media that there was "something to work with" in the way that Hamas had responded.
Mediators are likely to have their work cut out to bridge the remaining gaps at the indirect talks in Doha.
Watching them closely will be President Trump, who has been talking up the chances of an agreement in recent days.
On Friday, before he was briefed on Hamas's response, he said it was "good" that the group was positive and that "there could be a Gaza deal next week".
Trump is due to meet Netanyahu on Monday, and it is clear that he would very much like to be able to announce a significant breakthrough then.
The families of Israeli hostages and Palestinians in Gaza will also once again be holding their breath.
Hostages' relatives and thousands of their supporters attended a rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday night to call for a comprehensive deal that would bring home all of the hostages.
Among those who spoke was Yechiel Yehoud. His daughter Arbel Yehoud was released from captivity during the last ceasefire, which Trump helped to broker before he took office and which collapsed when Israel resumed its offensive in March.
"President Trump, thank you for bringing our Arbel back to us. We will be indebted to you for the rest of our lives. Please don't stop, please make a 'big beautiful hostages deal'," he said.
Reuters
An overnight Israeli strike hit a UN-run school sheltering displaced people in Gaza City
On Tuesday, the US president said that Israel had accepted the "necessary conditions" for a 60-day ceasefire, during which the parties would work to end the war.
The plan is believed to include the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages by Hamas and the bodies of 18 other hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
Fifty hostages are still being held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive.
The proposal also reportedly says sufficient quantities of aid would enter Gaza immediately with the involvement of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
A senior Palestinian official familiar with the talks told the BBC on Friday that Hamas was demanding aid be distributed exclusively by the UN and its partners, and that the GHF's operations end immediately.
Another amendment demanded by Hamas was about Israeli troop withdrawals, according to the official.
The US proposal is believed to include phased Israeli pull-outs from parts of Gaza. But the official said Hamas wanted troops to return to the positions they held before the last ceasefire collapsed in March, when Israel resumed its offensive.
The official said Hamas also wanted a US guarantee that Israeli air and ground operations would not resume even if the ceasefire ended without a permanent truce.
The proposal is believed to say mediators will guarantee that serious negotiations will take place from day one, and that they can extend the ceasefire if necessary.
The Israeli prime minister has ruled out ending the war until all of the hostages are released and Hamas's military and governing capabilities are destroyed.
Far-right members of his cabinet have also expressed their opposition to the proposed deal.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said on Saturday that the only way to secure the return of the hostages was the "full conquest of the Gaza Strip, a complete halt to so-called 'humanitarian' aid, and the encouragement of emigration" of the Palestinian population.
The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the 7 October 2023 attack, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.
At least 57,338 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.
Yoweri Museveni is one of Africa's longest-serving rulers
Uganda's long-serving president, Yoweri Museveni, 80, has been declared the governing party's candidate in next year's presidential election, opening the way for him to seek to extend his nearly 40 years in power.
In his acceptance speech, Museveni said that he had responded to the call and, if elected, would press ahead with his mission to turn Uganda into a "high middle income country".
Museveni's critics say he has ruled with an iron hand since he seized power as a rebel leader in 1986.
He has won every election held since then, and the constitution has been amended twice to remove age and term limits to allow him remain in office.
Pop star-turned-politician Bobi Wine is expected to be Museveni's main challenger in the election scheduled for next January.
Wine told the BBC in April that he would run against Museveni if he was nominated by his party, the National Unity Platform, but it was getting "tougher" to be in opposition because of growing state repression.
"Being in the opposition in Uganda means being labelled a terrorist," he said.
Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, lost the last election in 2021 to Museveni by 35% to 59% in a poll marred by allegations of rigging and a crackdown on the opposition.
Another prominent opposition politician, Kizza Besigye, has been in detention since November after being accused of treason. He denies the allegation, saying his arrest is political.
In his acceptance speech at the National Resistance Movement (NRM) conference on Saturday, Museveni said that he had brought about stability and progress in Uganda.
He said it was crucial that Uganda did not "miss the bus of history as happened in the past when Europe transformed and Africa stagnated and was enslaved".
Museveni added that he wanted Uganda to take a "qualitative leap", and become a "high upper middle income country".
"Other countries in Asia with less natural resources, did it. We can do it," he added.
Holders England and tournament first-timers Wales both lost their opening games of Euro 2025, but will they bounce back next time out in Group D?
BBC Sport football expert Rachel Brown-Finnis is predicting the outcome of all 31 games in Switzerland.
She got five of the opening eight group matches correct, including the Netherlands' victory over Wales, but was caught out by the Lionesses' defeat by France.
You did not see that result coming either, with only 16% of you backing Les Bleues. Like Rachel, you ended up with a score of 5/8 overall, and were also wrong about Finland beating Iceland and Italy getting the better of Belgium.
Will you and Rachel do better next time? You can make your own predictions for the second set of group games below, including England versus the Netherlands, and France against Wales.
Brown-Finnis has also picked her two teams to go through from each group into the knockout stage, and given her reasons why.
She is backing England to win the Euros again, and believes Wales won't get out of their group.
Rachel Brown-Finnis was speaking to BBC Sport's Chris Bevan.
Group A
Brown-Finnis' pre-tournament picks: Norway (winners) and Switzerland (runners-up).
Best Euros finish: Norway: winners in 1987 & 1993. Finland: semi-finals in 2005
Norway made such a slow start against Switzerland in their opening game but they were unrecognisable in and out of possession in the second half.
They looked like a different team after the break as they fought back from a goal down to beat the hosts, and I feel like they will build on that performance now they know the levels they need to reach.
Finland showed in their win over Iceland that they are well organised at the back and how tough they are to break down, but I still think Norway will find a way through.
Best Euros finish: Switzerland: groups in 2017 & 2022. Iceland: quarter-finals in 2013.
It feels like the tournament has only just got started but this is a huge match for both teams. If the earlier game in Group A finishes in a draw, then whoever loses here is out.
Iceland are the higher-ranked team and they will definitely believe they can get the result they need - but they were held to two draws when they played each other in this year's Nations League.
Switzerland's defeat by Norway was a disappointing result for the hosts but I thought they were fantastic in the first half and I don't think they let their lead slip because of a lack of application or a dip in their performance.
The swing in that game was more down to Norway changing their tactics and the Swiss failing to adapt. Even then, they were a bit unfortunate not to get anything from the game.
If Switzerland can play with the same intensity here then, with the crowd behind them, I think they will have enough quality to get their tournament back on track.
Brown-Finnis' prediction: 2-1
Group B
Brown-Finnis' pre-tournament picks: Spain (winners) and Portugal (runners-up).
Best Euros finish: Spain: semi-finals in 1997. Belgium: quarter-finals in 2022.
Spain were hugely impressive in their 5-0 victory over Portugal. It's already clear how much better they are this time than they were at the 2022 European Championship, when England beat them in the quarter-finals, and they are only just getting started at this tournament.
Lots of teams have seen changes in personnel since that tournament, and the 2023 World Cup, but none of them have improved to the extent that Spain have.
We saw against Portugal what happens when a team does not adapt at all to the dominant way Spain play - you have to acknowledge you are not going to see much of the ball, sit off them and play on the counter, but Portugal did not really do that and paid the price.
I am not expecting Belgium to make the same mistake, but it is still hard to see them getting anything out of this game. Losing to Italy was a big blow to their hopes of getting out of the group, and this is clearly a much harder task.
Belgium have played Spain four times in the past few months, in the Nations League and in qualifying for these Euros, and lost every time.
A couple of those defeats were heavy ones, but Belgium did cause them a few problems at times too.
I am not sure how close they will get to the world champions this time, but at least they know what to expect.
Best Euros finish: Portugal: groups in 2017 & 2022. Italy: runner-up in 1993 & 1997
Portugal were quite naive against Spain. They have got some quality, but not enough to take risks against the world champions and get a result.
This game is going to be much closer, and I am expecting a reaction from Portugal after seeing the way they have grown over the past couple of tournaments. They know they have to perform here, or they will be going home soon.
Italy may have a bit of a swagger about them after beating Belgium in their first game but they can be quite open themselves at times and I'd be surprised if they find this straightforward.
Brown-Finnis' prediction: 2-1
Group C
Brown-Finnis' pre-tournament picks: Germany (winners) and Sweden (runners-up).
Best Euros finish: Germany: Eight-time winners between 1989 & 2013. Denmark: runners-up in 2017.
Germany got off to a good start with their win over Poland but losing captain Giulia Gwinn to injury was a big blow, and she will not play again at these Euros.
I still think they have the squad depth to see off Denmark, and they already look composed and like they have found some rhythm, but this won't be easy.
The Danes badly need to get something out of this game, and Pernille Harder will be desperate to kickstart her tournament after hitting the bar in their defeat against Sweden.
Best Euros finish: Poland: first-time qualifiers. Sweden: winners in 1984
Poland put in a spirited performance against Germany, but still lost on their debut at a major finals.
It's hard to see them getting anything here, either. Sweden's win over Denmark was massive for their hopes of getting out of the group and I am expecting them to get another victory here too.
Like Wales, Poland are finding out that the level of tournament football at a European Championship really is the best of the best.
When you look at the world ranking of the teams here, then Europe is the strongest continent, which is why it's so hard to get out of your group - let alone go all the way and win it.
For teams who are at their first major finals, it is a case of looking upwards - not just in terms of everyone else's world rankings, but with factors like experience and confidence too.
Sweden have got lots of know-how at major finals and that should help them get the win they want before they face Germany in their final group game.
Brown-Finnis' prediction: 0-1
Group D
Brown-Finnis' pre-tournament picks: England (winners) and France (runners-up).
Best Euros finish: England: winners in 2022. The Netherlands: winners in 2017.
England started well against France but after having a goal ruled out for offside they were just not good enough in the first half.
The Lionesses improved and dominated possession after the break but still didn't manage any shots on target until the closing stages.
That defeat means this is a must-win game for them but, if they are going to beat the Netherlands, they will have to be much better at the basics.
Too many simple passes went astray on Saturday night, and we didn't see the kind of sharp and polished England performance that we have become used to.
We know England can be better, and I do think they will be much improved against the Dutch, but they will have to be careful because Vivianne Miedema looked like she is back to her best with her brilliant goal that broke the deadlock against Wales.
It was a reminder of her class, and also how she is not a player who needs loads of chances, but makes her opportunities count - which is why she has scored 100 goals and counting for her country.
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
This video can not be played
Media caption,
Miedema scores 100th goal to give Dutch the lead
Miedema can sometimes look disinterested, or seem uninvolved, but that's just how she plays - it means she is sometimes underestimated, when she is always dangerous.
I still believe England will rise to the challenge, however, even if manager Sarina Wiegman may have to review the tactics she used against France - they looked much more threatening when Michelle Agyemang came on late on, compared to when Alessia Russo was up top on her own.
When it comes down to games like this, where they have to get the three points, I would always back England and Wiegman to find a way of winning.
Best Euros finish: France: semi-finals in 2022. Wales: first-time qualifiers.
France were worthy winners against England. They got a bit of momentum in the first half, and took control.
Wales will know what to expect after watching that game, because Les Bleues looked pumped, and never gave England any easy possession of the ball at all, but stopping France is a huge ask - they looked fresh and fiery and their intensity and work-rate was simply relentless.
Wales had a way of playing against the Dutch that worked for a while - they defended in numbers, worked hard and pressed hard, and tried to attack on the break when they won the ball back - but they couldn't sustain it.
They found out the hard way what happens when you give players like Miedema too much space and time on the edge of your area, and if they drop off against France, then their quality will shine through too.
Readers react to an award for a law student’s essay claiming that the rights recognized in the Constitution apply only to white people. Also: Climate change.
The deported men shackled by both hands and feet, guarded by US service members, aboard the plane
The US has deported eight people to South Sudan following a legal battle that saw them diverted to Djibouti for several weeks.
The men - convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault and robbery - had either completed or were near the end of their prison sentences.
Only one of the eight is from South Sudan. The rest are nationals of Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Mexico. US officials said most of their home countries had refused to accept them.
The Trump administration is working to expand its deportations to third countries.
It has deported people to El Salvador and Costa Rica. Rwanda has confirmed discussions and Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini and Moldova have been named in media reports as potential recipient countries.
A photo provided by the department of homeland security to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, showed the men on the plane, their hands and feet shackled.
Officials did not say whether the South Sudanese government had detained them or what their fate would be. The country remains unstable and is on the brink of civil war, with the US State Department warning against travel because of "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict".
The eight had initially been flown out of the US in May, but their plane was diverted to Djibouti after US district judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts blocked the deportation. He had ruled that migrants being deported to third countries must be given notice and a chance to speak with an asylum officer.
But last week, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and overturned Judge Murphy's ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court confirmed that the judge could no longer require due process hearings, allowing the deportations to proceed.
Lawyers then asked another judge to intervene but he ultimately ruled that only Judge Murphy had jurisdiction. Judge Murphy then said he had no authority to stop the removals due to the Supreme Court's "binding" decision.
Tricia McLaughlin from the department of homeland security called the South Sudan deportation a victory over "activist judges".
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked all visas for South Sudanese passport holders, citing the country's past refusal to accept deported nationals.
Spending decisions have been made "harder" by the government's U-turn on welfare changes, the education secretary has said, as she did not commit to scrapping the two-child benefit cap.
Bridget Phillipson told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that ministers were "looking at every lever" to lift children out of poverty.
But she said removing the cap would "come at a cost" and insisted the government was supporting families with the cost of living in other ways.
It comes after a rebellion of Labour MPs forced the government to significantly water down a package of welfare reforms that would have saved £5bn a year by 2030.
The climbdown means the savings will now be delayed or lost entirely, which puts pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn Budget.
Before its retreat on benefits, the Labour government was considering lifting the two-child benefit cap, a policy that restricts means-tested benefits to a maximum of two children per family for those born after April 2017.
When asked if the chances of getting rid of the cap had diminished, Phillipson said: "The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder.
"But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty."
When the BBC revealed that MI5 had lied to three courts, the Security Service apologised for giving false evidence - vowing to investigate and explain how such a serious failure had occurred.
But on Wednesday, the High Court ruled that these inquiries were "deficient", ordering a new "robust" investigation. A panel of judges said they would consider the issue of contempt of court proceedings against individuals once that was complete.
Now we can detail how, over the past few months leading up to the judgment, MI5 continued to provide misleading evidence and tried to keep damning material secret.
The material gives an unprecedented insight into the internal chaos at MI5 as it responded to what has become a major crisis and test of its credibility.
At the heart of the case is the violent abuse of a woman by a state agent under MI5's control. After the BBC began investigating, MI5 attempted to cover its tracks - scattering a trail of false and misleading evidence.
The case started very simply: I was investigating a neo-Nazi, who I came to understand was also an abusive misogynist and MI5 agent.
After I contacted this man - known publicly as X - in 2020 to challenge him on his extremism, a senior MI5 officer called me up and tried to stop me running a story.
The officer said X had been working for MI5 and informing on extremists, and so it was wrong for me to say he was an extremist himself.
It was this disclosure, repeated in a series of phone calls, which the Security Service would later lie about to three courts as it attempted to keep X's role and identity shrouded in secrecy.
During the phone calls with me, MI5 denied information I had about X's violence, but I decided to spend more time investigating. What I learned was that X was a violent misogynist abuser with paedophilic tendencies who had used his MI5 role as a tool of coercion.
He had attacked his girlfriend - known publicly as "Beth" - with a machete, and abused an earlier partner, whose child he had threatened to kill. He even had cannibal fantasies about eating children.
Beth, who was terrorised and coerced by X, has called for a public apology from MI5
When I challenged both X and MI5 with our evidence, the government took me and the BBC to court in early 2022. They failed to stop the story but did win legal anonymity for X.
Arguing for secrecy in a succession of court proceedings, the Security Service told judges it had stuck to its core policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) informants' identities, including during conversations with me. Crucially, this stance allowed it to keep evidence secret from "Beth", who had taken MI5 to court.
The service aggressively maintained its position until I produced evidence proving it was untrue - including a recording of one of the calls with a senior MI5 officer.
Finally accepting it had provided false evidence, MI5's director general Sir Ken McCallum said: "We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information very seriously, and have offered an unreserved apology to the court."
Two investigations were commissioned: an internal MI5 disciplinary inquiry, and an external review by Sir Jonathan Jones KC, who was once the government's chief lawyer. This latter review was personally commissioned by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and MI5's director general.
Both of these concluded that the original false evidence was not due to dishonesty by MI5 or any of its officers. They effectively put it down to mistakes, both personal and systemic.
But these two inquiries quickly began to fall apart.
Not fair or accurate
The government initially refused to provide both reports in full to the court.
Like many cases involving MI5, this one was held partly in secret to allow the government to use evidence which it says is too sensitive to be discussed in open hearings.
Access to the secret, closed part of the case was only available to the government, the judge and security-cleared barristers known as special advocates who were representing the BBC - but who were not allowed to communicate directly with us.
The government said it would not be providing any closed evidence about the two inquiries to the judge or the special advocates.
Instead, it provided an "open" version of Sir Jonathan's external review, with apparently sensitive material edited out, and it purported to provide a full account of the internal inquiry in a witness statement by MI5's director general of strategy - known as Witness B.
Sir Jonathan wrote that he was "satisfied" that the open version was a "fair and accurate" account of his full review. Witness B, third-in-command at the Security Service, said in his statement: "I am satisfied that there is nothing in the closed material that has been excluded from the open report which prevents MI5 from providing the court with a frank and accurate account."
Getty Images
The High Court ruled that the explanations for MI5's false evidence were "deficient"
During hearings, the government argued against disclosing secret material to the court. It eventually agreed to hand over the secret version of Sir Jonathan's review, and then was ordered to disclose the internal investigation report described by Witness B, along with policy documents and notes of interviews with MI5 officers.
When the disclosure came, it was clear why MI5 was so keen to keep it secret: the summaries, including the one from MI5's third-in-command, were not fair or accurate. Key information had been withheld, which undermined their conclusions.
In short, the court was still being misled.
At the same time, in response to the inquiries, I was submitting new evidence which proved that some of the claims made by the two reviews were false.
Neither the internal investigation nor Sir Jonathan Jones contacted me, despite the fact I was the only other person who really knew what had been said in all the phone calls at the centre of the case.
'The fallibility of memory'
The two official reviews concluded that the senior officer who called me - Officer 2 - failed to recall telling me that X was an agent.
"There is nothing surprising in this narrative, which is ultimately about the fallibility of memory in the absence of a written record," as the Security Service put it in legal submissions.
The Jones review said that, because no formal record was made of the calls, by the time MI5 was preparing evidence the "only first-hand evidence available was Officer 2's personal recollection".
Sir Jonathan said the officer's recollection was "uncertain", although it had hardened over time into a position that he had not departed from NCND.
But material that MI5 and the government sought to keep secret shows that Officer 2 gave a detailed recollection of the conversation with me - until I exposed it as false.
His recollection was contained in a note of an internal MI5 meeting, arranged to discuss what to tell the special advocates and the court about the conversations with me. In it, the officer insisted he did not depart from NCND and gave a melodramatic account of my "long pauses" as I said I needed the story, before I eventually became cooperative and said I had "seen the light".
This was all untrue. He also falsely claimed I had revealed that I had spoken to X's former girlfriend, when I had done no such thing.
The note also showed that Officer 2 had told colleagues that he persuaded me to drop the story by implying that agent X was being investigated by MI5 as an extremist. This was the exact opposite of what he had in fact told me, which was that X was an MI5 agent rather than a real extremist.
Sir Jonathan was aware of the full version of this elaborate false account, but it was absent from the unclassified version given to the court and the BBC.
The MI5 internal review also claimed that Officer 2 had a lapse of memory.
It said that Officer 2 had told another officer - a key figure involved in preparing the Security Service's false evidence for the court, known as Officer 3 - that he could not remember whether he had departed from NCND.
In his statement to court, Witness B - MI5's director general of strategy - said Officer 2 had said "they could not recall the details" of the conversations with me but "did not think they had departed from NCND" and believed "they would have remembered if they had done so".
But an internal note by Officer 3, written after his discussion with Officer 2, contained a very different account.
It stated unequivocally that "we did not breach NCND" and that the contact with me "was prefaced with confirmation that this conversation was not on the record".
It also stated that, "after being initially fairly bullish, De Simone said that he acknowledged the strength of the argument, and agreed to remove those references".
All three claims were false, including about the conversations being off the record, something now accepted by MI5.
The evidence showed specific false claims being presented as memories - not the absence of memory the two inquiries said they found.
The written records MI5 said did not exist
The question of memory was so important because the court was told that written records were not available.
Witness B - MI5's third-in-command - said the internal investigation established that Officer 2 had "updated colleagues within MI5" about the conversations with me, but that "there was no evidence identified of any written record being made, by Officer 2 or anyone else".
"The fact of the matter was that Officer 2 was reliant on personal recollection alone which inevitably carries a degree of inherent uncertainty," Witness B said in his statement to court.
Sir Jonathan gave the same impression in his review.
But the secret material MI5 was forced to hand over proved this was false. There were several written records consistent with what had really happened - that MI5 had chosen to depart from NCND and that several people were aware of it.
There was a decision log.
There were notes of conversations with Agent X himself.
There were emails.
The decision log showed that, just after the authorisation took place, a formal record was created saying the plan was to call the BBC and "reveal the MI5 link to X". The log then noted: "This was discussed with Officer 2 who subsequently approached the BBC to begin this conversation."
In an internal email, after I had said I would not include X in an initial story, one of X's handling team reported this development to other MI5 officers and accurately described the approach to me, namely that Officer 2 had claimed my proposed story was "incorrect" and the rationale for this was that most of the material was as a "direct result of his tasking" as an MI5 agent.
Notes of calls and meeting with Agent X show he approved the plan to reveal his MI5 role and was kept updated about the calls. In a later meeting with him, MI5 recorded that he was "happy" to meet with me, which was an offer MI5 had made and I ignored.
But it showed that MI5 and X were well aware of the NCND departure, because the Security Service would obviously only try to arrange a meeting with someone like X if they were an agent.
In a telling note, MI5 said X thought that a meeting with me would "hopefully serve to counter some of the conclusions that the journalist had reached about X". This is a violent, misogynistic neo-Nazi, a danger to women and children, yet MI5 wanted to do PR for him with a journalist.
'Back in the box'
These records and others show that the handling team for agent X understood there had been an NCND departure. This was unsurprising as the calls with me at the time made it clear that his case officers knew what was happening.
But the internal investigation report records how, as MI5 was preparing to take the BBC to court to block our story on X, one officer went around convincing colleagues that no such departure had ever taken place.
Officer 3 spoke several times to a member of the agent-handling team within MI5 - known as Officer 4 - regarding what had been said to me about X.
"We have already named him pal," said Officer 4, according to Officer 4's evidence to the investigation and Officer 3 replied: "I can categorically tell you we didn't".
After these conversations, Officer 4 said he felt the other officer had put him "back in his box". Other members of the handling team thought what Officer 3 was saying was "odd" and "weird".
MI5 has given completely contradictory explanations for how the false claim about not departing from NCND had got into its witness statement.
Reuters
MI5 offered an "unreserved apology" to the court for its false evidence
The claim was given to court by an officer known as Witness A, acting as a corporate witness - meaning he was representing the organisation rather than appearing as someone necessarily involved personally in the events.
When the government was trying to stop the BBC publishing its story about X in 2022, the BBC's special advocates asked how Witness A could be so sure that NCND had not been breached.
The government's lawyers said "Witness A spoke to the MI5 officer who had contact with the BBC" - meaning Officer 2 - and the officer had said he neither confirmed nor denied agent X's role. The lawyers' answers strongly appeared to suggest that the pair had even spoken at the time of the calls with me.
After we exposed Witness A's false evidence, the lawyers' answers created a problem for MI5 as it either suggested Officer 2 had lied all along - or that he and Witness A were both lying.
It has since been claimed that the men did not speak to each other at the time of the calls with me.
Despite not reconciling these contradictory accounts, the investigation concluded "the parties were collectively doing their best to prepare a witness statement that was accurate".
Five times MI5 abandoned 'neither confirm nor deny'
Officer 2 claimed that he had never departed from NCND before and said that was a key reason why he would have recalled doing so.
But new evidence I submitted to court showed he had also told me whether or not five other people I was investigating were working with the Security Service. One of them was an undercover MI5 officer - one of the most sensitive and memorable details an officer could disclose.
Officer 2 had invited me to meet this undercover officer, just as he had offered me the chance to meet Agent X. I had not pursued either offer, which I thought were a crude attempt at pulling me into MI5's orbit.
Indeed, the internal MI5 material suggests that its officers wrongly believe that the role of journalists is to be cheerleaders for the Security Service. I was variously described as "bullish", "stubborn", "awkward", and not "as on board as other journalists".
X physically and sexually abused Beth, attacking her with a machete
They said, before their involvement with me, the BBC was seen as "friendly" and "supportive" of MI5. In reality, journalists like me are here to scrutinise and challenge the organisation.
The five other NCND departures were not apparently uncovered by MI5's internal investigators, nor by Sir Jonathan Jones.
Disclosing agent X's role would have been memorable and unusual on its own.
But the fact there were also departures on NCND relating to five other people made the chain of events even more extraordinary, and made any claimed loss of memory by Officer 2 – and in MI5 more widely – simply unbelievable.
The missing interviews
Both inquiries failed to speak to key people who were on the calls they were supposed to be investigating. Neither of them spoke to me - but there were other omissions too.
Sir Jonathan's review wrongly claimed that "only Officer 2 had been party to the calls" with me. In fact, Officer 2 had invited another senior officer to join one of the calls. He introduced himself by saying: "I head up all counter-terrorism investigations here."
He referred to my earlier "conversations" with Officer 2 and was plainly aware of their content - he even made a specific pun about something connected to X.
While MI5's internal investigation was aware that the head of counter-terror investigations had joined one of the calls and mentioned it in their secret report, investigators never bothered interviewing him.
After I submitted new evidence, MI5 was forced to speak to him - but the internal investigators concluded there was nothing to show he knew about NCND departures.
Sir Jonathan had also failed to speak to the MI5 officer at the centre of the case, Officer 2. He had simply adopted the conclusions of the internal inquiry - in which MI5 was investigating itself.
It emerged during the court case that Sir Jonathan did speak to MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum for his investigation. But when the BBC's special advocates requested any notes of the interview, they were told that none existed.
'Maintaining trust'
"MI5's job is to keep the country safe," Sir Ken said after the High Court judgement. "Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission."
Because of this case, the courts have made plain that MI5's practices should change. The government says it is reviewing how the service prepares and gives evidence.
Because NCND has been abandoned in relation to Agent X, Beth will now have a fairer trial of her legal claim against MI5. The monolithically consistent way in which the policy has been presented, including in a string of important cases, has been shown to be untrue.
This has become a story about whether MI5 can be believed, and about how it uses its privileged position to conceal and lie.
But in the beginning - and in the end - it is a story about violence against women and girls, about the importance placed on that crucial issue by the state, and about how covering up for abusive misogynists never ends well.
目前,欧洲已经从新视角中收益。在6月初 SuperReturn International(“国际超级回报大会”)投资者大会上,数千名大型投资者齐聚柏林,其资产管理规模总计约46万亿欧元,被誉为全球规模最大的私募股权和风险投资大会。很多资管机构都对欧洲作为投资目的地表现出浓厚的兴趣。总部位于纽约的阿波罗全球管理公司(Apollo Global Management)表示,其8000亿美元投资组合中,欧洲权重已达到约1000亿美元,并计划在未来十年进一步加大对德国的投资力度。
2025年4月2日|宣布“对等关税”:特朗普4月2日在白宫玫瑰花园举行“让美国再次富有”(Make America Wealthy Again)记者会,宣布“对等关税”措施。美国对大多数国家征收10%的基准关税,但针对特定国家征收更高税额。中国、欧盟和越南分别面临34%、20%和46%的关税; 日本、韩国、印度、柬埔寨和台湾,分别受到24%、25%、26%、49%和32%进口关税的打击。