France has formally recognised a Palestinian state, becoming the latest in a wave of countries to take the step.

Speaking at the UN in New York, President Emmanuel Macron said "the time for peace has come" and that "nothing justifies the ongoing war in Gaza".

France and Saudi Arabia are hosting a one-day summit at the UN General Assembly focused on plans for a two-state solution to the conflict. G7 states Germany, Italy, and the US did not attend.

Macron confirmed that Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra and San Marino would also recognise a Palestinian state, after the UK, Canada, Australia and Portugal announced recognition on Sunday.

International pressure is ramping up on Israel over the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza and settlement building in the West Bank.

Israel has said recognition would reward Hamas for the Palestinian armed group's 7 October 2023 attack on southern Israel that killed about 1,200 people and 251 people were taken hostage.

More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. Israeli forces are currently carrying out a ground offensive aimed at taking control of Gaza City, where a million people were living and a famine was confirmed last month.

The French leader told the conference that the time had come to stop the war and free the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas. He warned against the "peril of endless wars" and said "right must always prevail over might".

The international community had failed to build a just and lasting peace n the Middle East, he said, adding that "we must do everything in our power to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution" that would see "Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security".

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud also addressed the UN, on behalf of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

He reiterated that a two-state solution was the only way to achieve lasting peace in the region.

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres referred to the situation in Gaza as "morally, legally and politically intolerable" and said a two-state solution was the "only credible path" for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - who was blocked from attending the UN General Assembly in person after the US revoked his and other Palestinian officials' visas - addressed the conference via videolink.

He called for a permanent ceasefire and said Hamas could have no role in governing Gaza, calling for the group to "surrender their weapons" to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

"What we want is one unified state without weapons," he said.

Abbas also condemned Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on southern Israel and addressed Israelis saying: "Our future and yours depends on peace. Enough violence and war."

Macron said France was ready to contribute to a "stabilisation mission" in Gaza and called for a transitional administration involving the PA that would oversee the dismantling of Hamas.

He said France would only open an embassy to a Palestinian state when all the hostages being held by Hamas are released and a ceasefire had been agreed.

Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Dannon spoke to reporters shortly before Macron's announcement.

Dannon said a two-state solution was taken "off the table" after the 7 October attack and called this week's talks at the UN a "charade". He also refused to rule out Israel annexing the occupied West Bank.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted there will be no Palestinian state to the west of the River Jordan, and President Isaac Herzog said recognising one would only "embolden the forces of darkness".

Ahead of Macron's announcement, the Palestinian and Israeli flags were displayed on the Eiffel Tower on Sunday night. A number of town halls in France also flew Palestinian flags on Monday, despite a government order to local prefects to maintain neutrality.

Pro-Palestinian protests also took place in some 80 towns and cities across Italy, where Giorgia Meloni's government said recently it could be "counter-productive" to recognise a state that did not exist.

In Germany, the government has said Palestinian statehood is not currently up for debate, and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul explained as he left for New York on Monday that "for Germany, recognition of a Palestinian state comes more at the end of the process. But this process must begin now".

GPs in England are being urged to "think again" if they see a sick patient three times and can't pin down a diagnosis, or find their symptoms are getting worse.

The new NHS initiative, called Jess's Rule, is named after Jessica Brady who contacted her GP on more than 20 occasions after starting to feel unwell in the summer of 2020.

She was told her symptoms were related to long Covid and that she was "too young for cancer". She died from advanced stage 4 cancer later that year, aged 27.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said her death was "a preventable and unnecessary tragedy" and the rule would improve patient safety by helping GPs "catch potentially deadly illnesses".

'Her body was failing her'

Jessica Brady was a talented engineer at Airbus, involved in the design of satellites.

Her mum, Andrea, told Radio 4's Today programme that Jess was a very healthy young woman when the pandemic hit in 2020.

But in July of that year, she didn't feel right and contacted her GP practice repeatedly over the next five months about her symptoms.

Over time they became "increasingly debilitating", Andrea says.

"She had unintentionally lost quite a lot of weight, had night sweats, chronic fatigue, a persistent cough and very enlarged lymph nodes.

"But because of her age, it was obviously considered there wasn't anything wrong."

Jess had contact with six different doctors at her GP surgery and three face-to-face consultations with a family doctor, but no referral to a specialist was made.

"Her body was failing her," says Andrea.

"It was hard for Jess to advocate for herself. She was saying 'What's the point? Nothing will happen.'"

When the family decided to arrange a private appointment and she was referred to a specialist, it was too late.

Jess was given a terminal cancer diagnosis in November and died three weeks later - just days before Christmas 2020.

The family hopes Jess's Rule will help to increase awareness of the importance of GPs acting quickly for patients who are steadily deteriorating.

"She wanted to make a difference," Andrea says.

"Jess knew her delayed diagnosis was instrumental in the fact she had no treatment options open to her, only palliative care.

"She felt strongly she didn't want this to happen to other people."

Jess's Rule is not a law, but a strong reminder to GPs to take a "three strikes and rethink approach" after three appointments, to prevent avoidable deaths.

This could mean arranging face-to-face consultations with a patient previously only spoken to on the phone, ordering extra tests or asking for a second opinion from a colleague. GPs should also consider referring patients to a specialist.

The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), which was involved in drawing up the guidance, said no doctor ever wanted to miss signs of serious illness, such as cancer.

"Many conditions, including many cancers, are challenging to identify in primary care because the symptoms are often similar to other, less serious and more common conditions," said Prof Kamila Hawthorne, chair of RCGP.

"If a patient repeatedly presents with the same or similar symptoms, but the treatment plan does not seem to be making them better - or their condition is deteriorating - it is best practice to review the diagnosis and consider alternative approaches."

Research suggests younger patients and people from ethnic minority backgrounds often face delays before being diagnosed with a serious condition, because their symptoms don't appear similar to white or older patients.

RCGP has worked with Jess Brady's family to develop an educational resource for GPs on the early diagnosis of cancer in young adults.

The Department of Health said many GP practices already used the correct approach, but that Jess' s Rule would make this "standard practice across the country".

Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting thanked Jess's family, saying they had campaigned tirelessly through "unimaginable grief" to ensure Jessica's legacy helps to save the lives of others.

"Patient safety must be the bedrock of the NHS, and Jess's Rule will make sure every patient receives the thorough, compassionate, and safe care that they deserve, while supporting our hard-working GPs to catch potentially deadly illnesses," he said.

Paul Callaghan, from Healthwatch England, which represents people who use health and social care services, said the rule should be implemented "quickly and consistently".

"It's also imperative that specialist teams have the resources to deal with potential increases in demand, resulting from increased referrals," he said.

All names have been changed to protect the identities of hotel residents and staff

As I eat a meal cooked on the floor of a shower, I realise nothing has prepared me for what life is like for the residents of an asylum hotel.

I have been invited to join Kadir and his family for dinner - not in the hotel restaurant, but up in the rooms where he lives with his wife, Mira, and their three children.

An electric cable, covered in thick insulating tape, has been extended into the bathroom. Behind the door, Mira is crouching over a small cooker in the shower tray. Pans are precariously placed on a hob and she is stirring away.

As a pan full of oil starts to spit, I worry about the smoke alarm, but I needn't bother. The sensor in the room has been sealed tight with plastic bags.

This set-up is illegal and unsafe, but Kadir tells me his family would rather take the risk and make their own meals, than settle for the free hotel restaurant fare provided.

He dismisses that as "chips and chicken nuggets" and says hotel residents have complained it makes them feel ill.

The smell of herbs and spices wafting through the corridors seems to suggest they are not the only ones who feel this way.

"Everybody, they're cooking in their rooms like this," claims Kadir. "We all do it, but we do it undercover."

I visited four hotels this summer for File on 4 Investigates to try to get an impression of what life was like for those living and working there.

Two sites accommodated families, and the others were for single people - most of them men. But the stories in all four places - snapshots in time - were similar.

To protect the safety of residents and staff, I am not saying where the hotels are.

I heard from families who have been waiting in the UK for nearly a decade for their cases to be decided - and from people who have had babies in the misguided belief that doing so will automatically guarantee mother and child being given British passports.

There were uplifting stories of human spirit - including an elderly couple, both with serious health problems, who still managed to help others in their hotel with food and emotional support.

But, at the same time, I have seen signs of hotel residents working illegally in the black economy and discovered that the asylum system appears to require an extraordinary number of taxi journeys.

The government has pledged to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. They currently house about 32,000 people across the UK, down from 51,000 in 2023.

Asylum hotels - including two of those I visited - have become a focus for vocal and sometimes violent protests this summer, after a resident of one hotel in Epping, Essex, sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl.

Journalists aren't normally allowed inside the hotels, but I gained access through migrant contacts who had made the journey across the English Channel from France.

The hotels were never intended to be used like this. The rooms look smart on review sites on the internet - with sofas, televisions, double beds, ensuite bathrooms. Everything is there, and you would be pleased if one was yours for a couple of nights.

What the pictures don't show is the wear-and-tear and the build-up of possessions that come from continuous occupancy over months and years.

Where reception once was, there are now security desks. Outside, there are bollards and warnings that the public aren't allowed in.

At the hotels housing families, I am struck by the number of prams in the reception areas, and by how many babies and toddlers there are. With little or no communal space, younger children are left to play in empty corridors.

In one of the hotels, a friendly security guard, Curtis, shows me a makeshift running track he has set up for the children in an unused car park - and the bikes in the storeroom he has found and repaired.

When I ask the Home Office how many children have been born in asylum hotels, it tells me there are no figures available.

One of the first babies I meet is proudly held aloft by his father - they arrived from Somalia just weeks earlier and he tells me this is a "British baby", born on "British soil", who will, one day he believes, hold a British passport.

This is not, in fact, the case. The Home Office can still deport asylum seekers who have babies in the UK, although, according to Jon Featonby of the Refugee Council, there are extra safeguards which make it harder to forcibly remove them.

Kadir and Mira - the couple who cooked me a meal - have also had a baby since being in the UK. Kadir says he, his wife and their two older children were forced to flee Iraq. In his home country, Kadir says he had worked as a translator but was targeted by criminals.

The family has been moved between different hotels all over the UK since they arrived nine years ago. The Home Office initially rejected Kadir's case because of what it said was lack of proof. Two unsuccessful appeals followed. A third is currently under way.

The family occupies two adjoining hotel rooms - one for Kadir, Mira and their baby, and the other for their 12-year-old daughter, Shayan, and 14-year-old son, Roman.

Kadir says he wants to work, but won't do so illegally. However, he says he knows plenty of hotel residents who seek to supplement the £9.95 a week they receive from the government.

Kadir introduces me to Mohammed, who arrived from Afghanistan a few weeks ago.

Mohammed fixed up a job before he even hit UK soil, he says, as his cousin was already here and working illegally. He is now earning £20 a day for shifts that he says can last 10 hours, sometimes longer.

When I challenge Mohammed on why he is breaking the law, he says he has no choice because his family owes money to people-smugglers. It is a story I hear from other asylum seekers too.

Mohammed wants to send money back to his wife in the hope that one day - if he is allowed to remain in the UK - she will be able to join him.

In all four migrant hotels I visit, there are men and women coming and going at times that suggest they are working. Sometimes, delivery bikes are parked around the side of the buildings and occasionally vans pick people up.

In July, the Home Office conducted a UK-wide crackdown on illegal delivery drivers. It says 1,780 individuals were stopped and spoken to, leading to 280 arrests for illegal working activity.  A total of 53 people are now having their support reviewed as a result.

Staff in the hotel tell me it isn't their job to check these things, but security guard Curtis says he is not surprised. "You've got nothing to occupy these guys. So of course, they're going to go out there and work."

There seems to be a constant stream of cabs arriving and leaving the four sites I visit - although the Home Office says it doesn't have figures for the amount of money it spends on taxis at asylum hotels.

While residents are issued with a bus pass for one return journey per week, for any other necessary travel - for example, a visit to the doctor - taxis are called.

Proof of an upcoming appointment needs to be shown at the reception desk, where a taxi is booked on an automated system. Public transport or walking is not presented as an option.

This can result in some unusually long journeys and others that are unusually short.

For instance, when migrants move between hotels, they sometimes keep the same NHS doctors - especially for GP referrals. Kadir says a knee problem meant he was told to take a 250-mile taxi ride to see the consultant who had treated him at his old address. He says the taxi driver told him the return journey cost £600.

"Should the Home Office give me the ticket for the train? This is the easy way, and they know they spend too much money," Kadir says. "We know as well, but we don't have any choice. It's crazy."

I accompany Mira and Shayan as they go for a walk to a local chemist to pick up a prescription. It means braving a line of protesters shouting "Go home!" at them. They keep their heads down as police escort them through.

Later, I ask 12-year-old Shayan how she feels about the protests.

She says she wants to engage with the protesters and is frustrated the hotel staff won't allow her: "Me and my friends have always wanted to go up to them and speak to them face-to-face. What is their problem with the kids as well?"

Shayan and her brother say they are often reluctant to take the school bus that comes to collect them each weekday. "You never know what [the protesters] will do to the bus," she says, adding that she is afraid one of them might try to board it.

She wants to stay in the UK, she says, but her life so far has been spent in uncertain circumstances: "Once we get settled in a place, then they move us, and then we've got to learn where we come from, like, learn that area, go to a new school, make new friends, and then once we've done that, they move us again."

Since talking to me at the asylum hotel, Kadir and his family have been told they are to be moved on once more - to two hotels in different cities. Kadir and his baby daughter have been offered accommodation in one hotel, and Mira, Shayan and Roman in another, nearly 200 miles away.

But they are refusing to go. Kadir has already been told he has lost his weekly benefit and there is a chance the family will be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

The future for the family - like many other asylum seekers - remains anything but certain.

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.

Porsche's stock tumbled by more than 7% on Monday after warning last week that delays in its electric vehicle (EV) rollout will dent the carmaker's 2025 earnings.

Caught between electrification and its iconic petrol-powered sports cars, the German firm said it will slow its push for EVs as demand weakens.

Shares of its parent Volkswagen also fell by more than 7% on the same day after saying it will spend billions to overhaul Porsche's line-up of vehicles.

The companies' struggles reflect the challenges for European manufacturers, who are faced with intense competition from Chinese rivals and a slowing economy that's dampening demand for luxury cars.

Porsche said in a statement on Friday that it has reduced its projected profit margin from up to 7% to 2% or less.

It cited the "US import tariffs, the decline in the Chinese luxury market, and the slowdown in the ramp-up of electric mobility" among its challenges.

The company also said it would delay the launch of its newest EVs and that it will extend production of combustion engine models, even as the European market faces a 2035 deadline to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.

Industry executives have urged the authorities to relax that target, arguing it is not feasible.

In a strategic shift, Porsche said an upcoming line of sport utility vehicles, originally planned as fully electric, will now launch exclusively with combustion engines and plug-in hybrid options.

Current models like the four-door Panamera and Cayenne will continue to be available with non-electric options well into the 2030s, it added.

Luxury carmakers BMW and Mercedes-Benz have also been slashing costs to keep up with rivals.

European carmakers are facing fierce competition from Chinese brands like BYD and XPeng, which are caught in a price war in the domestic EV market.

Many international carmakers have struggled to compete in China, where average car prices have dropped by an estimated 19% over the past two years to around 165,000 yuan (£17,150; $23,190).

Bonmati's remarkable Euros after adversity

Coming back to make history at Euros

Barca legend's star-studded career

Ballon d'Or Feminin top 10 and selected others

France has formally recognised a Palestinian state, becoming the latest in a wave of countries to take the step.

Speaking at the UN in New York, President Emmanuel Macron said "the time for peace has come" and that "nothing justifies the ongoing war in Gaza".

France and Saudi Arabia are hosting a one-day summit at the UN General Assembly focused on plans for a two-state solution to the conflict. G7 states Germany, Italy, and the US did not attend.

Macron confirmed that Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra and San Marino would also recognise a Palestinian state, after the UK, Canada, Australia and Portugal announced recognition on Sunday.

International pressure is ramping up on Israel over the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza and settlement building in the West Bank.

Israel has said recognition would reward Hamas for the Palestinian armed group's 7 October 2023 attack on southern Israel that killed about 1,200 people and 251 people were taken hostage.

More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. Israeli forces are currently carrying out a ground offensive aimed at taking control of Gaza City, where a million people were living and a famine was confirmed last month.

The French leader told the conference that the time had come to stop the war and free the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas. He warned against the "peril of endless wars" and said "right must always prevail over might".

The international community had failed to build a just and lasting peace n the Middle East, he said, adding that "we must do everything in our power to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution" that would see "Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security".

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud also addressed the UN, on behalf of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

He reiterated that a two-state solution was the only way to achieve lasting peace in the region.

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres referred to the situation in Gaza as "morally, legally and politically intolerable" and said a two-state solution was the "only credible path" for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - who was blocked from attending the UN General Assembly in person after the US revoked his and other Palestinian officials' visas - addressed the conference via videolink.

He called for a permanent ceasefire and said Hamas could have no role in governing Gaza, calling for the group to "surrender their weapons" to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

"What we want is one unified state without weapons," he said.

Abbas also condemned Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on southern Israel and addressed Israelis saying: "Our future and yours depends on peace. Enough violence and war."

Macron said France was ready to contribute to a "stabilisation mission" in Gaza and called for a transitional administration involving the PA that would oversee the dismantling of Hamas.

He said France would only open an embassy to a Palestinian state when all the hostages being held by Hamas are released and a ceasefire had been agreed.

Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Dannon spoke to reporters shortly before Macron's announcement.

Dannon said a two-state solution was taken "off the table" after the 7 October attack and called this week's talks at the UN a "charade". He also refused to rule out Israel annexing the occupied West Bank.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted there will be no Palestinian state to the west of the River Jordan, and President Isaac Herzog said recognising one would only "embolden the forces of darkness".

Ahead of Macron's announcement, the Palestinian and Israeli flags were displayed on the Eiffel Tower on Sunday night. A number of town halls in France also flew Palestinian flags on Monday, despite a government order to local prefects to maintain neutrality.

Pro-Palestinian protests also took place in some 80 towns and cities across Italy, where Giorgia Meloni's government said recently it could be "counter-productive" to recognise a state that did not exist.

In Germany, the government has said Palestinian statehood is not currently up for debate, and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul explained as he left for New York on Monday that "for Germany, recognition of a Palestinian state comes more at the end of the process. But this process must begin now".

US comedian Jimmy Kimmel will return to his late-night talk show on Tuesday after he was suspended for making jokes relating to the death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

Disney, which owns the US broadcast network that airs Jimmy Kimmel Live, said on Monday that it suspended the show because it "felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive".

"We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday," Disney said.

The comic's abrupt suspension came after threats by the federal tv regulator to revoke ABC's broadcast licence, sparking nationwide debates over free speech.

US President Donald Trump had welcomed Kimmel's suspension and suggested that some TV networks should have their licences "taken away" for negative coverage of the president.

Trump did not address Kimmel's reinstatement when a reporter asked about it during a White House event on Monday.

Critics and First Amendment advocates have railed against the decision as censorship and a violation of free speech.

Kimmel has not yet publicly addressed the suspension or the fallout.

The row started after Kimmel said in his monologue on 15 September that the "Maga gang" were "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and trying to "score political points from it".

He also made fun of Trump's reaction to the influencer's murder, showing a clip of the president responding to a quesiton about how he was mourning the death by changing the subject to construction of a new White House ballroom.

Kimmel compared the response to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish".

Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of broadcast regulator the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), threatened to act against ABC and its parent company Disney over Kimmel's remarks.

The spat comes as Vice President JD Vance and other White House allies have been pushing a national campaign to punish anyone who has criticised Kirk in the wake of his death.

Hours after Mr Carr made his initial remarks about Kimmel's monologue, Nexstar Media, one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the US, said it would not air Kimmel's show "for the foreseeable future".

Sinclair, the largest ABC affiliate group in the US, followed suit and ABC announced that it would "indefinitely" suspend the programme.

Mr Carr thanked Nexstar "for doing the right thing" and said he hoped other broadcasters would follow its lead. Nexstar is currently seeking FCC approval for its planned $6.2bn (£4.5bn) merger with Tegna.

Nexstar and Sinclair did not immediately respond on Monday to the BBC's requests for comment.

ABC's decision was met with protests in California and lambasted by the writers and actors guilds, lawmakers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alike, who argued that the suspension violates free speech rights and spurs a chilling effect.

Kimmel's late-night colleagues, including Jon Stewart, John Oliver and outgoing CBS host Stephen Colbert, rallied behind him and hundreds of celebrities and Hollywood creatives signed on to a letter backing Kimmel.

Ben Stiller, Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro are among those who called Kimmel's suspension a "dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation".

Brazil's chief prosecutor has charged the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro with coercion, according to an official statement on Monday.

The attorney general's office has alleged Eduardo Bolsonaro, a congressman, repeatedly acted to subject the interests of the republic to personal and family agendas, subjecting Brazil to threats of sanctions from foreign governments.

The congressman called these charges "bogus" in a post on social media X, saying it was "absurd" to accuse him of obstruction of justice.

The latest move comes weeks after the ex-president, who governed Brazil from January 2019 to December 2022, was sentenced to 27 years in jail after he was found guilty of plotting a coup.

Eduardo Bolsonaro, who resides in the US, claimed he received news of the charges through the press, and the timing of the announcement highlighted his "ongoing political persecution".

In addition to a conviction, prosecutors will also seek "compensation for damages resulting from the criminal actions".

Businessman Paulo Figueiredo, grandson of former dictator João Batista Figueiredo, has also been named in the charges.

Eduardo Bolsonaro relocated to the US earlier this year, and told the BBC he was living in "exile" out of fear of arrest should he return to Brazil.

He has publicly lobbied for support for his father from the Trump administration, which likened the case against the former Brazilian president to a "witch hunt".

US President Donald Trump, who sees Bolsonaro as an ally, imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil in July, a move that current Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called "not only misguided but illogical".

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has vowed further action to pressure Brazil over the ex-president's conviction, and on Monday announced sanctions on the wife of Brazil's Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the former president's trial.

The justice said the sanctions against his wife were "illegal and regrettable".

Jair Bolsonaro was found guilty of plotting a coup earlier this month and has been sentenced to 27 years in prison.

Tens of thousands of Brazilians joined protests in cities across the country on Sunday to protest against a bill which could result in amnesty for the former president.

Under the proposal, members of Congress would have to give their approval - in a secret ballot - before a lawmaker could be charged or arrested.

Critics have dubbed it the "Banditry Bill" but members of Congress who supported it said it was necessary to shield them from what they said was "judicial overreach".

President Lula wrote on X: "I stand with the Brazilian people. Today's demonstrations show that the population does not want impunity or amnesty."

He has also vowed to veto the amnesty bill were it to be passed by the Senate.

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have announced they will immediately withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), labelling it an "instrument of neo-colonialist repression".

The three military-led countries issued a joint statement, saying they would not recognise the authority of the United Nations' top court, based in The Hague.

"The ICC has proven itself incapable of handling and prosecuting proven war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and crimes of aggression," the three leaders said.

The court has not yet responded to the decision by the three countries, all of which with close ties to Russia whose leader Vladimir Putin has been subject to an ICC arrest warrant.

The three states said they wanted to set up "indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice".

They accused the ICC of targeting less privileged countries, echoing criticism from Rwanda's President Paul Kagame who has previously accused the ICC of holding an anti-African bias.

The ICC was set up in 2002 to legally pursue cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression.

Out of 33 cases launched since its inception, all but one involved an African country.

A country's withdrawal from the ICC officially takes effect one year after the UN is notified.

Military junta forces are in control of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, following coups in the Sahel countries between 2020 and 2023. They make up the only three members of the Confederation of Sahel States.

Their armies have faced accusations of crimes against civilians, as violence has escalated in the region against jihadist groups linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

In another coordinated move earlier this year, all three countries simulatenously withdrew from the regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas).

They had rejected Ecowas' demands for them to restore democratic rule.

Russia has strengthened its ties with the three Sahel countries over recent years, which have all become increasingly isolated from the West, notably the former regional colonial power France.

In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russia's President Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

South Korea has arrested the leader of the controversial Unification Church over allegations the organisation bribed South Korea's former first lady in exchange for business and political favours.

Han Hak-ja's church is accused of giving Kim Keon Hee, the wife of ousted President Yoon Suk Yeol, two Chanel bags and a diamond necklace, together worth 80 million won ($57,900; £42,500).

Han, the 82-year-old widow of the church's founder Sun Myung Moon, has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling them "false".

The church said Tuesday it would "faithfully engage" with authoritiesand "do [its] best to use this as an occasion to restore trust in our church".

It also apologised for "causing concern to the people".

Prosecutors had sought an arrest warrant for Han on four charges including improper solicitation and graft, and occupational embezzlement.

In court on Monday, Han rejected the charges, insisting that she has neither interest in nor knowledge about politics. Her lawyers argued against the arrest, citing her age and worsening health.

Han is also accused of colluding with a former church official, surnamed Yun, to offer 100 million won in bribes to conservative lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong ahead of the 2022 presidential election, in exchange for favours for the church in the event that Yoon won the election - which he did.

Kweon, once seen as a close confidante of Yoon, was arrested last Wednesday. He denies accepting bribes.

The Unification Church had pinned the blame for both sets of allegations - involving Kim and Kweon - on the former church official, saying he acted alone in offering those gifts. The official has since been arrested.

Kim, the former first lady, was indicted last month for various charges, including bribery and stock manipulation, which she denies. Her trial started this week.

Her arrest marked the first time that both a former president and former first lady have been jailed in South Korea.

Yoon was detained in January and is facing a separate trial over a failed martial law bid last year that plunged the country into chaos and led to his impeachment.

The Unification Church, known formally as The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, was founded in South Korea in the 1950s by Moon Sun-myung, who proclaimed himself the messiah.

The church is best known for holding mass weddings involving thousands of couples, some of whom would have only recently been matched by the church.

Critics have described the group as "cult -like". Lawyers have accused it of coercing devotees, known colloquially as "Moonies" after its founder, to donate large sums of money.

The Unification Church had come under the spotlight in Japan after the assassination of the country's former leader Shinzo Abe. The alleged assassin blamed the group for bankrupting his family and held a grievance against Abe for allegedly promoting it.

The group is banned in parts of the world, including Singapore. In Japan, it has been ordered to dissolve.

A mother in New Zealand has been found guilty of killing her two children and hiding their bodies in suitcases, in a high-profile case that shocked the country.

Hakyung Lee, 44, was convicted of murder at the Auckland High Court on Tuesday, after a trial that lasted about two weeks. She had pleaded not guilty.

Lee's lawyers argued that she was insane at the time of the killing, which happened months after her husband died of cancer. But prosecutors argued that her actions were calculated.

The remains of her children were discovered in 2022 by a family who had purchased the contents of an abandoned storage unit at an auction in Auckland.

The bodies were believed to have been stored there for several years.

Lee was arrested in Ulsan, South Korea, in September 2022 and extradited to New Zealand later that year.

During the trial, the court heard that the children's bodies had no sign of trauma, though it was clear they had been killed by someone.

A pathologist found they had died by homicide by unspecified means, including the use of Nortriptyline, an antidepressant, the prosecution said.

The court heard that Lee picked up her prescription for the drug from a pharmacy in August 2017 – five months after her husband, Ian Jo, was diagnosed with cancer.

The defence claimed Lee's mental health deteriorated after her husband's death and came to believe it was best if they all died together.

This led her to try to kill herself and her children with the antidepressant, but she got the dose wrong - when she woke up, her children were dead. While she did kill her children, she was "not guilty of murder by reason of insanity," her lawyer said.

But the prosecution argued that Lee had demonstrated rational thought by hiding the children's remains, changing her name and moving back to South Korea, the prosecution said.

The killings were a "selfish act to free herself from the burden of parenting alone", the prosecution said.

On Tuesday, Lee had her head down and gave no reaction when the jury delivered the verdict, which came after around three hours of deliberation.

Lee is set to be sentenced in November. She faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, AFP reported.