President Donald Trump has warned that, if Venezuelan jets fly over US naval ships and "put us in a dangerous position, they'll be shot down".

His warning comes after Venezuela flew military aircraft near a US vessel off South America for the second time in two days, US officials told the BBC's US partner CBS News.

The reports follow a US strike against what Trump officials said was a "drug-carrying vessel from Venezuela" operated by a gang, killing 11 people.

President Nicolás Maduro has said US allegations about Venezuela are not true and that differences between the countries do not justify a "military conflict".

"Venezuela has always been willing to talk, to engage in dialogue, but we demand respect," he added.

When asked by reporters in the Oval Office on Friday what would happen if Venezuelan jets flew over US vessels again, Trump said Venezuela would be in "trouble".

Trump told his general, standing beside him, that he could do anything he wanted if the situation escalated.

Since his return to office in January, Trump has steadily intensified his anti-drug-trafficking efforts in Latin America.

Maduro has accused the US of seeking "regime change through military threat".

When asked about the comments, Trump said "we're not talking about that", but mentioned what he called a "very strange election" in Venezuela. Maduro was sworn in for his third term in January after a contested election.

Trump went on to say that "drugs are pouring" into the US from Venezuela and that members of Tren de Aragua - a gang proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the US - were living in the US.

• US strike on 'Venezuela drug boat': What do we know, and was it legal?

The US military has moved to bolster its forces in the southern Caribbean, including through the deployment of additional naval vessels and thousands of US Marines and sailors to stem the flow of drugs.

The White House said on Friday that the US is sending 10 F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico.

When asked about the build-up of military assets in the Caribbean, Trump said: "I think it's just strong. We're strong on drugs. We don't want drugs killing our people."

Trump is a long-time critic of Maduro. The US president doubled a reward for information leading to the arrest of the Venezuelan leader to $50m (£37.2m) in August, accusing him of being "one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world".

During Trump's first term, the US government charged Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan officials with a range of offences, including narco-terrorism, corruption and drug trafficking.

Maduro has previously rejected the US claims.

Villagers in a remote area of Sudan's western Darfur region are trying to reach buried victims by hand after a devastating landslide on Sunday, aid group Save the Children says.

"People are excavating by hand to rescue the bodies of their relatives since there are no tools or machinery", Francesco Lanino, Save the Children's deputy Sudan director for programmes and operations, said.

It is unclear how many people died. Figures range from as high as 1,000 from an armed group in charge of the area, to a figure from the national health ministry that says only two bodies have been recovered.

Save the Children said at least 373 bodies had been recovered, according to the head of the Civil Authority.

Mr Lanino said "1,000 lives may have been lost, including an estimated 200 children."

Save the Children staff described scenes of "destruction and devastation" after the landslide caused by heavy rainfall. Mr Lanino said teams on location believe the landslide to be "one of the most tragic and large-scale disasters in the region's history".

He added that in the impacted Tarseen area, which is made up of five villages, there is only one known survivor in the worst-hit village.

Independently verifying the impact of the landslide has been difficult due to the remoteness of the area.

However, through analysis of satellite imagery, BBC Verify was able to identify nine buildings and structures that were washed away in the disaster.

It took Save the Children aid workers more than six hours to cross nearly 14 miles (22km) of rocky, muddy terrain from their office to the impacted area.

Aid workers had travelled on donkey to reach the Tarseen area in order to deliver the first batch of humanitarian supplies to survivors.

The ongoing civil war in Sudan has also made rescue efforts more challenging, another aid group World Vision stated.

Separately from the landslide, Sudan is currently facing a humanitarian crisis due to fighting between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) group and the army.

Estimates for the death toll from the civil war vary significantly, but a US official last year estimated up to 150,000 people had been killed since hostilities began in 2023.

Twelve million people have fled their homes.

More BBC stories about Sudan:

• A collapsing mountain and bodies still buried under rubble
• Sudan war: A simple guide to what is happening
• A pregnant woman's diary of escape from war zone

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Welcome to the weird world of UK politics 2025.

The TV presenter Jeremy Kyle announces to a huge crowd of Nigel Farage supporters at Reform UK's party conference that David Lammy is the new number two in government and they boo, panto-style.

And there's a YouTube video of the (now former) deputy prime minister dancing in a tracksuit and chunky gold chain waving wads of cash that's been watched more than 1.5m times.

These might both sound like parodies, but only the video of Angela Rayner rapping "How Many Homes Can Rayner Buy" was a joke.

And what was planned as No 10's "get back in charge week" has been blown up by a row you couldn't make up – the housing secretary in trouble for not paying tens of thousands of pounds of tax on her expensive new house.

Her exit pushed the button on a chunky shakeup of Sir Keir Starmer's team.

The start of this political season has been wild.

In the end, Rayner's decision to go was clear cut.

The official report into her behaviour said she'd tried to do the right thing, but not tried hard enough. So the rules had been broken.

Her camp reckoned she had no option. No 10 agreed.

There is frustration that the manner of her exit from government gave her critics what they wanted. But she knew she had no choice, and was devastated by her own mistake.

• Starmer to announce more ministerial changes after Rayner resignation - live
• Chris Mason: Faced with an almighty mess PM opts for big shake-up
• Working-class warrior who fell from power
• In full: Rayner, PM and ethics adviser's letters

It's acutely and specifically painful for Labour because Rayner had personally styled herself as something of a sleaze-buster.

It was she who often led the charge against the succession of Conservatives who got into trouble over their own complicated financial arrangements, hurling accusations of arrogance and greed on a fairly regular basis.

She was the shoutier end of Starmer's so called "Mr Rules" approach, a serious belief that government had to be washed clean of its tawdry image after multiple scandals and Boris Johnson's, ahem, flexible attitude to the normal rules.

She portrayed herself as a loud and proud champion of ordinary people looking at the worst Westminster behaviour in disgust.

For Labour in general, it undermines again, their claim to be different to those who went before, to return government to the "service of the people", as Sir Keir said so many times – to be competent, with clean heels.

For the government's number two to have messed up her tax affairs undermines faith in ministers' ability. As one MP put it, "it's not even a rookie error, it's 40,000 smackers of oversight".

And for such a prominent politician to lose their job over property dealings that many of the public couldn't imagine being able to afford gives the impression, again, that politicians live in a different world.

"There's just the smell test," a Labour insider said.

This time last year, Rayner, the prime minister himself, and even the chancellor were all red faced for taking, albeit permitted freebies, of clothes, glasses, and gig tickets, struggling to explain why politicians are entitled to free stuff the rest of us are not.

Twelve months on, Rayner is the fifth minister who has quit after their actions caused embarrassment for the government. Those clean heels look a bit scruffy now.

The mess is, of course, a gift for Nigel Farage. At his party's conference in Birmingham on Friday Rayner's exit didn't just shove him on stage a few hours early for his speech to try to grab a space in the news cycle, it gave more ammunition to his fundamental argument.

Reform's pitch rests on a claim that the two big parties are as bad as each other, and preside over a system that is bust.

Does his vow he could stop the small boats in a fortnight stand up? We'll be talking to the Reform leader later, and our full interview will be on the show on Sunday.

The prime minister's answer to the drama of the last couple of days?

Making changes to his ministers.

The decisions were made finally because of Rayner's exit but the moves have been long in the making.

Downing Street's hope is to salvage opportunity out of what was fast morphing into a crisis. A No 10 source tells me: "None of us expected it to unfold as it did, but this gives real shape and substance to a refreshed No 10 team, marking a strong new phase of this premiership."

You and I might translate that as: "The saga over Angela's tax was a total pain in the neck, but it's given us the excuse to make some of the changes we fancied anyway."

One insider described it as moving those who were "a bit awkward, or a bit tired".

What those changes add up to depends on who you ask.

One ally of the PM tells me, the reshuffle "is all about immigration", believing "Shabana [Mahmood] is the one who can get a grip of this" to solve the small boats issue or "we're all done for".

Some of Starmer's allies have long admired Shabana Mahmood, and believe her elevation to home secretary will see bring a more forthright approach to cracking the problems of the immigration system.

As justice secretary she held out the possibility of castrating sex offenders. That is not exactly a proposal designed to warm the hearts of Labour Party branch meetings.

But in some government circles there's a hope she'll take a more strident approach to the small boats crisis than Yvette Cooper.

Cooper moves to a life where she'll spend a lot more time on a plane, as foreign secretary. But those close to her believe it's a tribute to her work doing deals with countries on migration in this last year that she has been given the arguably more prestigious job.

I wouldn't bet we'll see her meeting JD Vance in waders any time soon. But there is the small matter of a state visit from his boss, President Trump, in a matter of days.

Different sources point to other appointments as the ones that will make the difference. The government's often stated number one priority has been to get the economy growing. You don't need me to tell you they haven't been having a great time with that.

Sources suggest moving Pat McFadden, the wily political brain, into a new mega ministry to deal with welfare and skills is part of a souped-up attempt to get the country working, and moving Peter Kyle to business is a way to soothe fevered brows of industry.

He takes the seat of Jonathan Reynolds, who moves to the vital role of chief whip. Given how many ructions there were on the backbenches last term, despite the party's mega majority, Reynold's fortunes keeping the party on side, or not, will be critical.

But while the reshuffle was a major set of moves, will it dramatically change what you see from the government that runs the country? Don't expect big swerves.

This is not a reshuffle that has come about because of some massive ideological bust up. It seems more about the personalities of the ministers involved than any dramatic shifts in Starmer's ambition.

His allies say in the first year in office he was frustrated at how hard it was to get anything done. The hope is the new line up will work more quickly, and push harder on the government's most thorny problems. One minister said the "time for incremental change has passed – we don't have long", conscious all the time of Reform breathing down their neck.

Will it work? That's what we'll witness as the months unfold. A senior Labour figure told me disappointedly: "I'm not sure moving personnel is the best thing – the biggest frustration is the lack of project – that's what makes it hard to make day to decisions."

This reshuffle doesn't answer the most frequent complaint made about Sir Keir by his own party, often publicly, that it's just not that clear exactly what he stands for.

"Phase 2" was meant to be "delivery, delivery, delivery". Another bout of political jargon that followed, "change", "renewal", "security", "fairness", "milestones", "first steps", you get the point.

Even some of the PM's allies would admit privately that none of his chosen pitches to the public have made people's hearts sing.

"You can see the problem from Mars," another party insider says, "there's not enough political direction of what he wants to do – so the policies don't lather up into anything". they reckon. That oft-cited problem is not going to be miraculously solved by a set of HR decisions after a huge embarrassment this week.

But Sir Keir's hope this weekend will be that a reboot at the cabinet table makes his government more effective - demonstrating government can work.

And convincing the public of that these days would be a significant achievement.

Seven days ago there was an ambition that week one of "phase two" might be an orderly start to the term. The Rayner saga skewered that plan. Now with his new chosen team in place there is more opportunity to make things work perhaps, but fewer excuses if things go wrong.

A senior party source told me: "The test is how does the PM show how No 10's capacity for political strategy and policy making have materially changed?"

With a long list of problems and the party conference looming, we'll soon know if Downing Street can pass that test, to prove it can manage the many challenges of "phase two" any better than the agonies of year one.

Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.

Top image credit: Leon Neal/ Reuters

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.

Chef and television presenter Matt Tebbutt will replace Gregg Wallace as a judge on the next series of MasterChef: The Professionals, the BBC has confirmed.

The Saturday Kitchen host will join Marcus Wareing and Monica Galetti on the programme.

Tebbutt said it was "an absolute honour" to be working alongside "two titans of the food world".

He replaces Wallace, who was sacked in July after a report upheld 45 allegations about his behaviour on the programme, including one of unwelcome physical contact and three of being in a state of undress.

The inquiry, conducted by an independent law firm, was ordered by MasterChef's production company Banijay in the wake of a BBC News investigation which first revealed claims of inappropriate sexual comments.

Wallace said he was "deeply sorry for any distress" he caused, but that he had "never set out to harm or humiliate".

The report also upheld a separate claim of using a severely offensive racist term against fellow MasterChef host John Torode, who did not present on spin-off series MasterChef: The Professionals.

Both hosts were sacked and the BBC has not yet announced who will replace them on the main amateurs series of the show.

• Inside the MasterChef crisis: Wallace and Torode were 'never friends'

Tebbutt, who has years of experience in the restaurant industry and is a regular contributor to food and travel magazines, has been seen as a potential replacement.

Commenting on his new role on the spin-off, he said he was looking forward to his co-judges "taking me under their wing and seeing the chefs get off to a flying start in the competition".

Wareing said Tebbutt's experience "speaks for itself", while Galetti said it was "really exciting" to have him join the show.

The transmission date for MasterChef: The Professionals has not yet been confirmed.

The controversy over MasterChef started last year, when claims of misconduct against Wallace were first revealed.

The show's production company Banijay launched an immediate inquiry into the allegations. This summer, the report revealed that 83 claims had been made against Wallace, with more than 40 upheld.

Following that report, Wallace issued a statement to the PA news agency insisting that "none of the serious allegations against me were upheld".

"I challenged the remaining issue of unwanted touching but have had to accept a difference in perception, and I am deeply sorry for any distress caused. It was never intended."

The upheld complaint against Torode related to a severely offensive racist term allegedly used on the set of MasterChef in 2018.

Torode said he had "no recollection" of it and that any racist language is "wholly unacceptable".

The BBC decided to broadcast this year's amateurs series of MasterChef - with both Wallace and Torode in it - for the sake of the chefs who had taken part in it.

Wallace will be replaced by Irish chef Anna Haugh in the final episodes, as that is when the allegations against him first emerged during filming in November.

The BBC has also not yet announced what it plans to do with the completed celebrity series - which was filmed with Torode and restaurant critic Grace Dent - or the Christmas special.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has shifted on his pledge to stop migrants arriving on small boats within two weeks of entering government if they win power.

Farage told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that he would stop the boats within two weeks of passing laws that he says would allow him to deport migrants quickly.

When asked if passing those laws could take months, Farage said a government led by him would "want to do it as quickly as we possibly can".

The two week pledge was one of the standout announcements of Farage's keynote speech to his party's conference in Birmingham on Friday.

He told activists: "We will stop the boats and we will detain and deport those who illegally break into our country."

He said this was what "nearly every normal country around the rest of the world does".

"You cannot come here illegally and stay. We will stop the boats within two weeks of winning government," he added.

In plans announced last month, Reform UK suggested it would be prepared to deport 600,000 migrants over five years if it won power at the next general election.

Farage said his party would bar anyone who came to the UK on a small boat from claiming asylum and make £2bn available to offer payments or aid to countries like Afghanistan to take back migrants.

Key to the plan is the passage of a new law called the Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.

Reform UK said the bill would create a legal duty for the home secretary to remove illegal migrants, and ban anyone who had been deported from re-entering the UK for life.

The bill would also "disapply" international treaties like the Refugee Convention, a 1951 treaty that prevents signatory countries like the UK from returning refugees to countries where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

When asked how that would work, given the complexities and typical timelines of passing legislation, Farage told Laura Kuenssberg: "As soon as the law is in place. As soon as you have the ability to detain and deport, you'll stop it in two weeks."

Citing Australian policies, Farage said once the country had "the legal base" to tow small boats back to Indonesia they solved the problem in two weeks.

Under former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's offshore detention policy, asylum-seeker vessels were controversially turned back to Indonesia and would-be refugees sent to Papua New Guinea and Nauru in the Pacific for processing and resettlement.

In June 2014, Abbott said Australia had marked six months since the last asylum-seeker boat arrival in December 2013 - a few months after he took office.

When Farage was asked if he was making promises he could not keep, he said he meant what he said about mass deportations.

He accused other political parties of telling "the electorate what they think the electorate want to hear without every intending to deliver it".

Farage has also said he mis-spoke when he said he bought a house in his Clacton constituency before the last general election, telling Sky News that his partner had bought the property.

He said: "I should have said 'we'. All right? My partner bought it, so what?" adding, "I own none of it. But I just happen to spend some time there."

He added: "I should have rephrased it. I didn't want...to put her in the public domain."

Watch the full interview with Farage on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg at 0900 BST on BBC One and on BBC Iplayer.

A resident has paid for graffiti to be removed from outside Angela Rayner's flat in Hove, the council has said.

The graffiti appeared on a white wall on the outside of the home earlier in the week, after Ms Rayner admitted underpaying stamp duty on the property.

The 45-year-old quit as deputy prime minister, housing secretary and deputy Labour Party leader on Friday, following an official probe into the admission.

A Brighton & Hove City Council spokesperson said on Friday: "Due to security concerns, and in line with our policy of removal of offensive graffiti, we have removed graffiti reported in Hove. This has been paid for by a resident."

Ms Rayner's spokesperson has called the vandalism "totally unjustifiable and beyond the pale" and said it was a matter for the police.

Across the road from her seafront flat, "Tax evader Rayner" and "Rayner tax avoidance" were written on construction chipboard.

Ms Rayner's spokesperson said: "This vandalism to residents' homes is totally unjustifiable and beyond the pale.

"Neither Angela nor her neighbours deserve to be subjected to harassment and intimidation.

"It will rightly be a matter for the police to take action as they deem appropriate."

The MP for Hove and Portslade, Peter Kyle, said he was disappointed at the graffiti.

Mr Kyle, who became Business and Trade Secretary in Friday's reshuffle, said: "I'm really disappointed that the heritage wall has been defaced over this issue. Hove is better than this."

Workers from Brighton & Hove City Council turned up to clear off the graffiti on Thursday afternoon but withdrew after complaints from locals about how quickly the clean up was happening compared to similar vandalism across the city.

A spokesperson for Sussex Police said on Thursday: "We have been made aware of graffiti outside an address in Hove.

"The matter is being treated as criminal damage and we are proactively making enquiries to gather information as to the circumstances.

"We will be contacting the homeowner to identify and address any further concerns.

"Anyone with information is asked to contact us."

Additional reporting by PA Media

Follow BBC Sussex on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.

Three British nationals were killed in the Lisbon funicular crash, Portuguese police have said.

The Glória funicular, a popular tourist attraction, derailed and crashed into a building on Wednesday, killing 16.

More than 20 people were also injured, with five in a critical condition.

Nationals of Portugal, South Korea, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, France, and the US are also among the dead, police said.

It is not known what caused the crash. The capital's public transport operator, Carris, said all funiculars would be inspected and that it had launched an independent investigation.

The 140-year-old carriage derailed at around 18:15 local time (17:15 GMT) near the city's Avenida da Liberdade boulevard.

More than 60 rescue personnel raced to the scene to pull people from the wreckage.

Videos and images of the site showed an overturned, crumpled yellow carriage lying on the cobblestone street.

Portugal's Prime Minister Luís Montenegro called the crash "one of the biggest human tragedies of our recent history" and a national day of mourning was declared.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

Sometimes it's not what's said that makes the biggest impression.

It's the reaction.

In the Russian Far East, Vladimir Putin delivered a warning to the West: don't even think about sending soldiers - and that includes peacekeepers - to Ukraine.

"If some troops appear there," the Russian president said, "especially now while the fighting's going on, we proceed from the premise that these will be legitimate targets for destruction."

Then the reaction.

The audience at the economic forum in Vladivostok burst into applause, with Russian officials and business leaders apparently welcoming the threat to "destroy" Western troops.

Observing the scene in the hall, I found the applause quite chilling.

And this came just a day after Kyiv's allies, the so-called Coalition of the Willing, had pledged a post-war "reassurance force" for Ukraine.

• Putin rejects Western security in Ukraine, warning troops would be target

The audience applauded again when the Kremlin leader suggested that he would be prepared to meet Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky - but only on home soil.

"The best place for this is the Russian capital, in Hero City Moscow," said Putin.

Outside Russia, Putin's proposal has been dismissed as unserious, a complete non-starter. A case of political trolling.

But in many ways it encapsulates the Kremlin's current position on the war in Ukraine: "Yes, we want peace, but only on our terms. You reject our terms? No peace then."

• Putin says Russia will achieve all aims militarily if Ukraine does not agree deal

This uncompromising stance is being fuelled by a combination of factors.

First, by the Kremlin's belief that, in Ukraine, Russian forces have the initiative on the battlefield.

Second, by diplomatic success. In China this week, Putin shook hands and shared smiles with a string of world leaders. The optics were all about demonstrating that Russia has powerful friends, such as China, India and North Korea.

And then there's America. Last month US President Donald Trump invited Putin to Alaska for a summit meeting. Back home pro-Kremlin commentators hailed the event as evidence that Western efforts to isolate Russia over the war in Ukraine had failed.

To convince the Kremlin to end the fighting Trump has previously set ultimatums and deadlines; he's threatened further sanctions if Russia won't make peace.

But Trump hasn't followed through on his threats - and that's another reason for Russia's confidence.

Putin publicly praises Trump's peace efforts. And yet he has rejected Trump's ceasefire proposals and shown no desire to make concessions over the war in Ukraine.

So where does that leave prospects for peace?

Putin said recently that he could see "light at the end of the tunnel".

It seems to me that right now Russia on the one hand, and Ukraine and Europe (and to some extent America) on the other are in different tunnels, on different roads, with different destinations.

Ukraine and Europe are focused on ending the fighting, shaping security guarantees for Kyiv and making sure that the Ukrainian army is strong enough post-war to prevent another invasion.

When Putin talks about "light at the end of the tunnel", I believe he imagines a path that leads to a Russian victory in Ukraine, and more widely, to the construction of a new global order that benefits Russia.

In terms of peace, it's hard to see where and when these two very different highways will converge.

When I interviewed surgeon Neil Hopper in 2023 for BBC News, I believed I was speaking to a man who had been humbled by the life-changing experience of losing his legs to sepsis.

Little did I know, Hopper had a sexual interest in amputation and had frozen his own legs so they would be removed.

Hopper, a consultant vascular surgeon who had carried out hundreds of amputation operations, told me he had come down with a mystery illness on a family camping trip which had led to sepsis and below-knee amputations of both his legs.

In reality, he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs, causing damage that meant they eventually had to be amputated in hospital.

Watching him being jailed on Thursday it was hard to reconcile the reflective man I had interviewed in my capacity as a journalist, with the often graphic details heard in court.

When I interviewed him, I had not doubted the version of events he had told me for one moment. He was a respected surgeon, and why would anyone lie about such a thing?

Warning: Contains information some readers may find upsetting

Back in 2023 Hopper, who grew up in Aberystwyth and Swansea and was living in Truro, Cornwall, appeared almost grateful for the opportunity his life-changing surgery had given him to reassess his life.

"You have to make a lot of sacrifices to be a surgeon and family time is one of them," the father-of-two told me. "I know that was a mistake."

He seemed relaxed, at peace, like a man who had gone through something horrific but had come out the other side changed for the better.

He said losing his legs had led him to "audit" his life and try new things, including applying to become Nasa's first disabled astronaut.

He told me he passed the medical and made it to the final 27 applicants but the space agency eventually selected Paralympic sprinter John McFall.

"My life is more interesting because of what's happened to me," he insisted.

He also praised his wife.

"This didn't happen to me, it happened to us," he said.

The truth behind his amputations was finally laid bare in court on Thursday.

Having his legs amputated was a long-standing ambition for Hopper, the court was told. He had both an obsession and a sexual interest in removing parts of his own body.

The court heard how he had suffered body dysphoria since childhood and his feet were an "unwelcome extra" and a "persisting never-ending discomfort".

For some time, Hopper had been paying to access videos of body mutilation.

The court heard he had bought three videos from the website for £10 and £35, respectively, showing men willingly having their genitals removed.

He also exchanged about 1,500 messages with Marius Gustavson, an amputee who ran the website.

Some of the messages were Hopper seeking advice from Gustavson about how he had brought about his own lower leg amputation.

In one message Hopper told Gustavson: "I've dreamt of this for 20 years."

In another he wrote: "It's going to be awesome being a double amputee."

After his amputations he sent him another message: "It feels so cool. No feet!"

Hopper returned to work for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust just six months after his amputations.

He went on to make fraudulent claims from two insurance firms, lying that the injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.

During this time he messaged a friend to say he felt he should "milk this as much as possible".

The money - totalling more than £466,000 - was quickly spent on luxury items including home improvements, a campervan and a hot tub.

Hopper's unique insight as an amputee who carried out amputation operations, as well as his bid to go into space garnered plenty of media attention.

"He enjoyed the attention that this generated," the court was told.

It was the police investigation into Gustavson that would be Hopper's undoing.

Gustavson was jailed for life in 2024 for leading an extreme body modification ring.

Hopper was arrested in March 2023 and has been suspended from the medical register since December 2023.

On Thursday he was jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography. The court heard Hopper did not regret the operations, but "bitterly regrets" the "dishonesty" about their cause.

When news of the charges against Hopper broke in July, I was shocked.

Then I was confused - what exactly was he accused of doing? And why would someone inflict those injuries on themself?

Then I was concerned. Was I wrong to have taken what he told me at face value?

Fact-checking is an essential part of journalism, but on the face of it this did not appear to be a difficult story to confirm.

I was communicating with Hopper through his place of work, his work as a surgeon was well-documented, and his bilateral amputations were plain to see.

In court Hopper's case was described as "very unique", a "saga" and "difficult to comprehend".

He had managed to pull the wool over the eyes of medics, two insurance companies, and those who knew him - who expressed shock in character references read to the court.

Remembering my conversation with Hopper while watching his sentencing on Thursday, it was clear that as a journalist you never quite know where a story will take you.

Like many Australians, Rach grew up "terrified of the sun" in a country that has the unenviable title of skin cancer capital of the world.

Her childhood was characterised by the infamous "no hat, no play" rule that is commonplace in Australian schools, 90s advertisements that warned the sun would give you cancer, and sunscreen tubes that stood guard at every door in her home.

It made the now 34-year-old the kind of person who religiously applies sunscreen multiple times a day and rarely leaves the house without a hat.

So she was shocked when doctors found a skin cancer on her nose during a check last November, something they said was abnormal given her age and ray-dodging regime.

Though technically classified as a "low grade" skin cancer – a basel cell carcinoma – it had to be surgically removed, leaving the Newcastle mum with a scar just below her eye.

"I was just confused, and I was a little bit angry because I was like, 'Are you kidding me?'" Rach – who asked that her surname not be used – told the BBC. "I thought I'd done all the right stuff and it still happened to me."

That rage grew when she learned the sunscreen she had been using for years was unreliable and, according to some tests, offered next to no sun protection at all.

Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.

There has been a massive backlash from customers, a probe launched by the country's medical watchdog, multiple products pulled from shelves, and questions raised about the regulation of sunscreen around the globe.

"It's definitely not an issue isolated to Australia," cosmetic chemist Michelle Wong told the BBC.

The reckoning

Australians have a complicated relationship with the sun: they love it, but they also fear it.

Effective public health messaging – which has drilled "Slip, Slop, Slap" into their heads – competes with a beauty culture which often idolises bronzed skin.

The country has the highest incidence of skin cancers in the world and it is estimated that two out of three Australians will have at least one cut out in their lifetime.

So when Choice Australia released its damning report in June, it immediately made waves. The group had tested 20 sunscreens in an independent accredited Australian lab, finding 16 did not meet the SPF, or skin protection factor, rating listed on the packet.

Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a facial product that Rach says she used exclusively, was the "most significant failure" identified. It returned a result of SPF 4, something that shocked Choice so much it commissioned a second test that produced a similar reading.

Other products that did not meet their SPF claims included those from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council - but they all rejected Choice's findings and said their own independent testing showed their sunscreens worked as advertised.

The uproar was immediate for the brands named in the report, and also prompted a swift response from the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), which said it would investigate the findings and "take regulatory action as required".

Ultra Violette bit back, saying they were "confident that Lean Screen is safe and effective" and detailing extensive testing of the product – which has been sold in almost 30 countries, including the UK, and retails for upwards of A$50 (£24, $33).

But less than two months later, it announced that Lean Screen would be recalled after it returned inconsistent results across eight different sets of lab testing.

"We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us," read a statement published to the brand's Instagram account.

It added that it has "since ended the relationship with the initial testing lab".

In the past fortnight, other brands have "paused" the sale of at least four more products, none of which were included in the Choice report.

Rach knows there is no way to prove that there is a link between her diagnosis and the brand of sunscreen she relied on. She says she is not alleging there is such a connection.

But she said Ultra Violette's response to the scandal was like "a kick in the guts".

She felt that they took no real accountability for the pitfalls of their product, and was let down by their decision to continue selling it for two months despite doubts over its efficacy.

"I just had like the five stages of grief, you know?" she said. "I was angry, I was upset, I was almost in denial."

Like Rach, a horde of annoyed customers say the saga has shaken their faith in the industry.

"A refund isn't really going to reverse years of sun damage, is it?" one wrote in response to Ultra Violette's recall statement.

Choice has urged the TGA to conduct further investigations into the sunscreen market, and also urged any brands who had reason to question the SPF protection listed on their products to remove them from sale immediately.

"It is clear there is a serious issue in the Australian sunscreen industry that urgently needs to be addressed," said Rosie Thomas, the director of campaigns, in a statement to the BBC.

How did this happen?

While in Europe sunscreen is classed as a cosmetic, Australia regulates it as a therapeutic good – essentially a medicine – which means it is subject to some of the most robust sunscreen regulations in the world.

And that's something many of the brands caught up in this saga trade on. So, how did this happen?

An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.

It also found that several of the sunscreens pulled from shelves shared a similar base formula and linked them to a manufacturer in Western Australia.

The TGA says it does not usually speak about ongoing investigations because it does not want to compromise them, but that it is also looking into "reviewing existing SPF testing requirements" which can be "highly subjective".

"The TGA is also aware that it is common practice for different sunscreen products to share the same or similar base formulations," a spokesperson said in a statement to the BBC.

"Ultimately it is the sponsor's [seller's] responsibility to ensure that their medicine remains compliant with all applicable legislative requirements."

Consistent and comfortable sunscreens which offer high protection are very technical and difficult to make, says Dr Wong, founder of Lab Muffin Beauty Science.

Everyone's skin responds differently to the product, he adds, and it's one that is almost always being stress-tested – by sweat, water, or makeup.

It is very difficult to rate effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it has been done by spreading the sunscreen on 10 people at the same thickness, then timing how long it takes for their skin to start burning both with and without the product applied.

While there are clear guidelines as to what you are looking for, Dr Wong says there is still a lot of variability. That is down to skin texture or tone, or even the colour of the walls, and "different labs get different results".

But she says results are also quite easy to fake, pointing to a 2019 probe by US authorities into a sunscreen testing laboratory which resulted in the owner being jailed for fraud.

Many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and testing labs - and so this issue is unlikely to be isolated to Australia, she adds.

"Until someone goes out and tests a whole bunch of sunscreens in other countries, we just don't know the extent of it."

She says the scandal is a reminder that regulations are only as good as they are enforced.

But while it has touched a nerve for many people who are at high risk for skin cancer simply by virtue of being Australian, Dr Wong said she felt the panic triggered by the investigation was blown out of proportion.

She points to the world's largest clinical trial of sunscreen, done in the 90s, which found that the daily use of an SPF 16 sunscreen dramatically dropped skin cancer rates.

"95% of the sunscreens tested [by Choice] have high enough SPF to more than half the incidence of skin cancer," Dr Wong said.

"Some of the SPF testing, I feel, has become a bit more of a marketing exercise than a real reflection of efficacy."

The most important thing you can do when choosing a sunscreen, she says, is actually wear enough of it – a full teaspoon at least for each part of your body, face included.

And ideally you should apply it about every two hours, especially if you have been sweating a lot or swimming.

Experts also advise that you combine the sunscreen with other safety methods, such as wearing protective clothing and seeking out shade.

If Republican leaders in Washington had hoped that a month-long congressional recess would help the Jeffrey Epstein controversy die down, this week's frenzy of activity has dashed those hopes - at least for now.

Last Friday, the Justice Department released more than 33,000 pages of documents related to its Epstein investigation into child sex trafficking. By Monday, a consensus had formed that most of the information was already publicly available or of little interest.

Early in the week, Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democrat Ro Khanna of California resumed their efforts to gather support for a "discharge petition" in the House of Representatives that would force a vote on publicly releasing the entirety of the government's Epstein case information.

On Wednesday, a group of Epstein victims and their families held a press conference on the steps of the Capitol to support the discharge petition and call for full disclosure in the Epstein case.

Taken together, it's the kind of drumbeat of attention that has helped the story break into the larger public's awareness. But will it stay there? Here are possible scenarios for what happens next.

The heat on Trump rises

The victims' press conference could mark a dramatic turn in the Epstein saga.

Missing from the Washington dialogue, which had focused on client lists and the possible involvement of the rich and powerful, were the faces of those whose lives were damaged or destroyed as children by Epstein's crimes.

The gathering at the Capitol on Wednesday put those victims front and centre - with an added promise that they would not be silenced.

Donald Trump has for months tried to brush off the criticisms of his administration's handling of the Epstein case as a "hoax" perpetrated by his political enemies.

That strategy, while effective in the past, is becoming harder in this case.

And if Massie and Khanna succeed in forcing a House vote to publicly release all remaining Epstein files - and there is new, politically damaging information in them involving Trump or other high-profile political figures - the dam could break.

The White House has denied a Wall Street Journal report that Trump was told in May by his attorney general that his name appeared in files related to the investigations against Epstein, who took his own life in prison awaiting trial.

• What do we know about the Epstein files?
• Epstein accusers say they are compiling list

He was friends with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, but being named is not evidence of any criminal activity. Trump has never been accused by investigators of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein matter.

Even if there no "client list" of the Epstein's rich and powerful comes to light, the victims may will one into existence. They've promised to gather the names of those they said had close ties to Epstein and were connected to his misdeeds.

"I'm not afraid to name names," said Majorie Taylor Green of Georgia, one of the Republican members of Congress and usually a Trump loyalist. "And so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor and I'll say every damn name that abused these women."

These are the kind of ingredients that could fan the flames in the Epstein story as summer turns to autumn.

It rumbles on but little damage

Maybe there's nothing new in any new Epstein-related documents that make it into the public domain. Or maybe the congressional efforts to force public disclosure fall just short. Even with the victims and their families becoming more visible, new revelations or information are what drive news cycles and substantively move public opinion.

In this scenario, the Epstein story doesn't go away completely but it never becomes the kind of crisis that causes lasting political damage to the Trump administration. It is a distraction, not a disruption.

As the Republican Party prepares for midterm congressional elections next year that are shaping up to be closely contested, even a modest drag on their public approval - a diversion that keeps them from focusing on a more beneficial campaign message - could have significant ballot-box consequences.

As Trump pointed out on Tuesday, it's hard to squash a conspiracy theory. He drew parallels to the 1963 assassination of John F Kennedy and his recent orders to release more government documents.

"You know it reminds me a little of the Kennedy situation," he said. "We gave them everything over and over again, more and more and more and nobody is satisfied."

Trump will be more familiar with the recent conspiracy around former President Barack Obama's birthplace. The White House released short- and long-form certificates showing Obama was born on US soil but doubters, most notably Trump himself, were never satisfied.

Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.

Fade to black, scandal subsides

If there's one undeniable power that Trump has shown over his 10 years in the national political spotlight, it's the ability to outlast every scandal and controversy that comes his way. While the Epstein story has a toxic blend of power, abuse, sex and influence, there's no indication that this will be any different.

"He's done it before, and he will do it again" is the mantra that a White House looking for a best-case scenario might want to repeat. Without new revelations, the public will eventually tire of this story - or it will be buried by a new scandal, conflict or media frenzy.

If so, the Epstein saga will return to corners of the internet and the political fringes, joining the Kennedy assassination, US moon landing and, yes, Obama's birth certificate as the focus of only an obsessed few.

It may not be justice - it may be too late for that - but it would not be an unfamiliar ending in modern American politics.