An Eritrean man is due to be flown out of the UK on Friday morning under the government's "one in, one out" deal with France, after a last-minute court bid to delay the departure failed.
He will become the second person removed from the UK under the policy when his flight leaves at 06.15.
This comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed the year-long pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.
The first flight under the agreement returned one person, an Indian national, to France on Thursday.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the first return demonstrated to people attempting small boat crossings "if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you".
The Eritrean man set to fly to France on Friday morning arrived in England on a small boat in August.
His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of human trafficking.
In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday, the presiding judge said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the unnamed man.
Mr Justice Sheldon said there was "significant public interest" in removing him, noting that home secretary was acting in the public interest by pursuing a policy to combat dangerous people smuggling.
He would instead have an opportunity to make his case in France.
"There is no serious issue to be tried in this case that the claimant has been denied procedural fairness," said the judge.
The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe.
He said he had lived in France, sleeping rough, and eventually made his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England.
But in his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon noted the man had given differing accounts of his allegations of trafficking, and so it was open to the home office to conclude that "his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed".
The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.
The new policy means that a migrant who is refused protection in the UK because they have suffered slavery or trafficking may only challenge that decision after they have been flown out of the country.
US President Donald Trump weighed in on illegal immigration to the UK at the end of his state visit.
During a press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he suggested using the military to combat small boat crossings.
Starmer countered by affirming that the UK had "a number of cooperation deals with other countries" in place and are taking the issue "incredibly seriously".
The Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, but it is not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.
Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.
The "one in, one out" deal is intended to deter people from turning to smugglers to cross the Channel because of the risk they could be sent back.
It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come in return.
Neither government has suggested that the plan will smash the crossings on its own.
Around 5,590 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August.
The president was feted by King Charles III with the sort of pageantry he covets, signed a technology deal and steered clear of big disagreements with Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The prime minister and his team are delighted – and relieved.
State visits are far from a new tool in the British armoury of soft power, but they are frequently a useful one – and particularly with an unpredictable ally with an abiding love for the UK in general and its monarchy in particular.
That was why, back in February and brandished with a flourish, Sir Keir Starmer delivered the King's invitation to US President Donald Trump for a second such visit.
Gratefully received as it was, his British hosts still needed to pull it off, and the prime minister still needed to make it through the potential rollercoaster of a news conference with his guest.
And that is what Sir Keir managed and so hence his team's relief.
They have now – on several occasions – managed to tame Trump during their joint public appearances.
It is not that the two men agree on everything, far from it.
Their instincts, communication styles and politics are wildly different, but Trump's disagreements with Sir Keir were somehow channelled past him, rather than at him.
The UK is expected to recognise a Palestinian state in the coming days - when, from Downing Street's perspective, the president is safely back on his own side of the Atlantic. The president acknowledged to me he disagrees with the prime minister on this.
He said so explicitly, but gently, and only at the end of a lengthy answer which the Starmer would have agreed with the thrust of.
Even his remarks about illegal immigration, while headline making, seem to have less impact in this the second half of the first year of his second term. The president's willingness to comment on the internal politics of an ally feels more priced in, and so carries less shock value for many.
In advance of the news conference, there had been much speculation about the potential for his mood to sour instantly on the mention of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
But, confronted by it and asked in particular about Epstein's friendship with the former British Ambassador to the United States Lord Mandelson, he instantly smothered it as if with a fire blanket.
His answer was curious, claiming he didn't know Lord Mandelson – despite them meeting in the White House last week, for a start.
Downing Street may allow themselves to hope theirs is a relationship with the Trump administration that is normalising and - whisper it - at least some of the time bordering on the conventional, and so less demanding on the bandwidth and mental energy devoted to it in its early months.
The caveat, of course, with Donald Trump, is you never know.
This state visit provided the UK with invaluable face time with the president – and so the opportunity to both set out the UK's position and attempt to persuade.
The prime minister has been successful in the former, but the persuasion bit? That's rather more tricky.
Spectacular autumn leaves expected after warm UK summer
Image source, Getty
Published
Bright reds, orange and gold colours will gradually appear on our trees in the coming weeks.
The autumn tree display is expected to be even more vibrant this year according to Forestry England, external.
Very warm and sunny weather over the summer means that trees have produced more sugar in their leaves which will transform them into brighter colours.
Early displays are likely from mid-September and lasting well into November in some parts of the UK.
Image source, Getty
Image caption,
Reds, orange and golden leaves expected to bring a flamboyant autumn display this year
Why do leaves change colour in autumn?
With the nights drawing in along with wetter, windier and cooler weather recently, you may have noticed it's starting to feel like autumn.
One of the more spectacular parts of the new season arriving is the leaves turning into a colourful display.
Forestry England experts think this autumn will be even more dramatic than usual.
"We've had a very warm and sunny summer, and that helps trees build up the sugars in their leaves that create those amazing autumn colours...and we're expecting a really beautiful display this year," said Andrew Smith, Director of Forestry England's Westonbirt, The National Arboretum.
Gradually the lower light levels into autumn reduces the production of the green pigment - chlorophyll - and the underlying colours of yellow, red and orange come through.
But with a record-breaking warm summer and sunshine amounts above average, trees produced more sugars in their leaves.
And with higher sugar concentrations, a pigment called anthocyanin is produced, making the leaves even redder.
Forestry England suggests that "if we continue to experience warm days and cool, dry nights in September, we could see one of the most flamboyant autumn displays in recent years".
However, as Kevin Martin, Head of Tree Collections at Kew Gardens points out "we may not see the spectacular display when all trees change colour at once, as some trees have already changed and shed their leaves".
Known as a 'false autumn' - the leaves on some trees such as horse chestnut have already turned brown and dropped in response to the stress of drought.
Although in response to the recent rainfall, some of these trees at Kew Gardens have started to regrow temporarily before the regular autumn change comes.
Image source, Getty
Image caption,
Autumn colours are expected to peak at Kew Gardens in mid-to-late October
Best time for autumn leaves
With varying weather and temperatures across the UK, the displays of autumn leaves may not all come at the same time.
And different trees will also react to the changing conditions at different times.
In southern England trees are expected to start changing from mid-September.
At Kew for example, Mr Martin suggests there will be a "good overlap when many of the trees will be changing colour from mid-to-late October".
"And one of the most spectacular displays of autumn colour is the American ash where the leaves will turn a golden yellow before changing into purples and deep red," he added.
In central parts of the UK peak colours are expected from late September to mid-October according to experts.
And in northern parts where temperatures are lower with rainfall likely to be higher, the vibrant colours are more likely to last into November.
综合台湾《自由时报》和ETtoday新闻云报道，林佳龙当地时间星期三（9月17日）出席台驻意大利代表处馆舍整修竣工典礼暨酒会。包括意大利参议院副议长钱益友（Gian Marco Centinaio）、意大利国会友台协会主席马兰（Lucio Malan）、意大利国会友台协会共同主席帕洛里（Adriano Paroli）等在内的16名参众议员与会。
Democrats opened investigations, filed motions to subpoena and demandedthe resignation of the Federal Communications Commission chair Thursday — a response to the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel that represented unusually swift pushback from a party struggling to find its footing.
But it’s not clear how Democrats will translate this relatively united front into an electoral strategy, as the party remains divided over how and how much to talk about threats to democracy ahead of next year’s pivotal midterm elections.
That tension began playing out in their descriptions of Kimmel's suspension, as some Democrats urged their party to retool its messaging.
At a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce legislation to protect free speech, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) attacked President Donald Trump for “trying to destroy our democracy” and acting like “many would-be despots.” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) cautioned “fascism is not on the way, it is here.” But Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who is running for the U.S. Senate in a high-profile primary, warned that language may be “too abstract for people” and urged Democrats to “distill it down to something people get in their everyday life.”
“This is what we saw in 2024: When you talk about ‘fascism’ and ‘democracy’ and ‘oligarchy,’ it’s too big a concept,” McMorrow said. “People are so overwhelmed and when it’s too big, people just wonder, ‘well, what can I possibly do about it?’”
A House Democratic member, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly, warned of “a risk in talking about it in hyperbolic terms,” adding that there’s distinction in framing. “If you’re saying, ‘they're taking away your speech and they're canceling you,’ that’s more powerful than saying, ‘they’re taking away your democracy,’” the lawmaker added.
The Kimmel controversy — and how to talk about it — lands in the middle of an already-inflamed political landscape. Following last week’s killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made comments Monday that appeared to align Kirk’s alleged killer with the MAGA movement. ABC announced Kimmel’s suspension on Wednesday night, after FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened the network if it didn’t take action, telling a conservative podcaster, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
"It's very clearly part of a crackdown on freedom of speech,” former federal Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told POLITICO. “If we can't have comedians, let alone law firms or academics or journalists speaking their mind, then this isn't a free country."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a statement with colleagues lambasting the FCC's "corrupt abuse of power."
Even so, veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod warned that Democrats must not lose focus.
“The main thing needs to be the main thing and the main thing is that people have struggles in their lives in this economy, and Democrats need to keep that the focus," he said, "but that doesn't mean that you can ignore what isn't just a free speech issue.”
“He said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk,” Trump said. “You can call that free speech or not, he was fired for lack of talent.”
Even some Trump-friendly comedians and podcasters have raised concerns over Kimmel’s suspension. Tim Dillon, who interviewed then-vice presidential candidate JD Vance last year, posted on Instagram: “I am against Kimmel being taken off the air and against people being shot for their opinions. See how easy it is?” One of the hosts of the Flagrant podcast, who interviewed Trump in 2024, said, “in terms of censorship, freedom of speech is more under attack now, honestly, than I think it’s ever been.”
Democrats see it as an opening for breaking through to “people who are not hard partisans,” said Tim Hogan, a Democratic National Committee senior adviser.
“There is a broad audience that’s splintering from Trump’s coalition that understands everyone and anyone could be a target for something they say,” Hogan said. “This is not amorphous, this is going after your right to free speech.”
North Carolina state Sen. Graig Meyer urged his party to “meme this” rather than lecture voters on it, adding that, “yes, it’s authoritarianism,” but “Democrats should talk about it like, ‘Republicans want to take away your laughs,’” he said.
“The left is so bad at doing that type of culturally embedded storytelling and Republicans are so good at it,” Meyer said. “This is a chance to change the narrative around Trump, and it’s a chance to change the cultural narrative around Democrats, being willing to fight and providing an alternative.”
The flurry of controversial events is forcing a party in the political wilderness to confront anew an issue that bedeviled it during the presidential election last year.
Leaning on democracy as a campaign message didn’t help Democrats in 2024, when they deployed it against Trump and he nevertheless won the popular vote. Kamala Harris held one of her final campaign rallies last fall on the Ellipse, the same spot where Trump rallied his own supporters to march on the Capitol.
Several national Democrats said privately that Kimmel and free speech are “not going to be the top midterm issues Democrats are talking about,” one strategist said granted anonymity to discuss it candidly.
“Poll after poll shows that Trump’s threats to democracy aren't a top issue for swing voters, and I don’t see it dominating in TV ads next fall,” said Democratic pollster Brian Stryker. “But sometimes you have to fight for things because it's the right thing to do for the country and not because it's going to win you an election. And if we don't fight now, we may not have elections to fight to win in the future.”
Adam Wren and Cassandra Dumay contributed reporting.
Login
