The US Secretary of State has said that a move by Israel's parliament towards annexation of the occupied West Bank would threaten Washington's plan to end the conflict in Gaza.

"That's not something we can be supportive of right now," Marco Rubio said before leaving for Israel as part of US efforts to shore up a fragile ceasefire deal.

In an apparent attempt to embarrass Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, far-right politicians took the symbolic step of giving preliminary approval to a bill granting Israel authority to annex the West Bank.

The Palestinians claim the West Bank - occupied by Israel since 1967 - as part of a hoped-for independent state.

Last year, the International Court of Justice - the UN's top court - said Israel's occupation was illegal.

Netanyahu has previously spoken in support of annexing West Bank land but has not advanced this due to the risk of alienating the US - Israel's most important ally - and Arab countries which have built relations with Israel after decades of enmity.

Ultra-nationalists in Netanyahu's governing coalition have repeatedly called for Israel to annex the West Bank outright, though the bill was put forward by MPs outside the government.

The bill passed in a 25-24 vote. It is unclear whether it has support to win a majority in the 120-seat Knesset (parliament), and there are ways the prime minister can delay or defeat it.

The Palestinian foreign ministry condemned the Knesset's move, saying Israel would have no sovereignty over Palestinian land.

Israel has built about 160 settlements housing 700,000 Jews during its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. An estimated 3.3 million Palestinians live alongside them.

The settlements are illegal under international law - a position supported by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice last year.

As he boarded the plane to Israel, Rubio said annexation would be "counterproductive" and "threatening" for the peace deal - reiterating US opposition to annexation.

His visit on Thursday comes hot on the heels of trips by US Vice-President JD Vance and two special envoys, as the Trump administration attempts to push for the start of talks on the second critical phase of his 20-point Gaza peace plan.

The first phase - which includes a ceasefire, the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces and an influx of aid - came into effect earlier this month.

Both Israel and Hamas have accused each other of breaching the agreement over deadly incidents, but it has so far held.

Rubio voiced similar optimism to that of Vance for preserving the ceasefire.

"Every day there'll be threats to it, but I actually think we're ahead of schedule in terms of bringing it together, and the fact that we made it through this weekend is a good sign," he said.

The second phase of the peace plan would involve setting up an interim government in Gaza, deploying an international stabilisation force, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the disarmament of Hamas.

The war in Gaza began with the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which around 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage.

In the ensuing conflict, more than 68,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry, whose figures are seen by the UN as reliable.

Strictly Come Dancing presenters Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman are to leave the show.

"We have loved working as a duo and hosting Strictly has been an absolute dream. We were always going to leave together and now feels like the right time," the pair wrote in a joint statement on Instagram.

"We will have the greatest rest of this amazing series and we just want to say an enormous thank you to the BBC and to every single person who works on the show."

Daly has presented since the first series 21 years ago. Winkleman joined in 2014, having hosted Strictly's sister show It Takes Two since 2004.

The duo called the show's crew "the most brilliant team" who they would "miss every day".

"We will cry when we say the last 'keep dancing' but we will continue to say it to each other.

"Just possibly in tracksuit bottoms at home while holding some pizza," they added.

One of the BBC's highest-rated shows, Strictly Come Dancing launched in 2004. It was originally hosted by Daly and Sir Bruce Forsyth, who stepped down in 2014.

Describing her 21 years on the show, Daly said it was "hard to put into words" what the experience had meant to her.

"Strictly has been more than just a television programme. It's felt like having a third child, a second family, and a huge part of my life since that very first show.

"I knew then it was something special, but I could never have imagined the magic it would bring."

She also paid tribute to "the incomparable Sir Bruce Forsyth".

Winkleman, who also hosts Celebrity Traitors, added: "Strictly is a magical, glittery, fake-tanned train and it's been a privilege to be a tiny part of it.

"It has been my everything, the show I will be eternally grateful for.

"I will never forget Len Goodman trying to teach me what a cucaracha is (I still don't know) and the complete thrill and honour it was to work with Tess on the results show to co-hosting on Saturday nights."

The pair also referenced the off-screen friendship they built up over two decades on screen.

"Tess - I'm so so lucky I got to stand next to you. You're funny, kind, whip smart and a true friend and I love you," Winkleman said.

Daly added: "To my beloved Claud - what an absolute joy and pleasure it has been sharing this adventure with you.

"You're one of a kind, and I'll treasure every giggle, every live show, and every backstage moment we've shared. I'm so grateful to have you as my friend for life."

The Israeli military is exerting control over more of Gaza than expected from the ceasefire deal with Hamas, a BBC Verify analysis has found.

Under the first stage of the deal, Israel agreed to retreat to a boundary running along the north, south and east of Gaza. The divide was marked by a yellow line on maps released by the military and has become known as the "Yellow Line".

But new videos and satellite images show that markers placed by Israeli troops in two areas to mark the divide have been positioned hundreds of metres deeper inside the strip than the expected withdrawal line.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz - who instructed troops to place the yellow blocks as markers - warned that anyone crossing the line "will be met with fire". There have already been two deadly incidents near the boundary line.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) did not address the allegations when approached by BBC Verify, stating simply that: "IDF troops under the Southern Command have begun marking the Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip to establish tactical clarity on the ground."

There has been a consistent lack of clarity as to where exactly the boundary will be imposed, with three separate maps posted by the White House, Donald Trump and the Israeli military in the run up to the ceasefire agreement which came into force on 10 October.

On 14 October the IDF issued the latest version marking the Yellow Line on their online map, which is used to communicate its position to people in Gaza.

But in the north, near the al-Atatra neighbourhood, drone footage from the IDF showed that a line of six yellow blocks were up to 520m further inside the Strip than would have been expected from the IDF maps.

Footage geolocated by BBC Verify showed workers using bulldozers and diggers to move the heavy yellow blocks and place them along the coastal al-Rashid road.

A similar situation was visible in southern Gaza, where a satellite image taken on 19 October showed 10 markers erected near the city of Khan Younis. The line of blocks ranges between 180m-290m inside the Yellow Line set out by the IDF.

If these two sections of boundary were typical of how the markers were being placed along the entirety of the line then Israel would be exerting control over a notably larger area than expected from the ceasefire agreement.

Multiple analysts who spoke to BBC Verify suggested that the blocks were intended to create a "buffer zone" between Palestinians and IDF personnel. One expert said the move would be consistent with a long-term "strategic culture" which seeks to insulate Israel from nearby territories it does not fully control.

"This gives the IDF space to manoeuvre and create a 'kill zone' against potential targets," Dr Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King's College London, said.

"Potential targets can be engaged before they reach the IDF perimeter. It is a bit like no man's land that does not belong to anyone – and Israel tends to take that territory from the opponent's chunk not its own."

Three experts who spoke to BBC Verify suggested that the disparity between the markers and the IDF map was an intentional design to warn civilians they are "approaching an area of increased risk".

Noam Ostfeld, an analyst with the risk consultancy Sibylline, said that some blocks "seem to be positioned near roads or walls, making them easier to spot".

But a post to X by the Israeli defense minister seemed to suggest that the yellow blocks marked the actual line, warning that "any violation or attempt to cross the line will be met with fire".

There is already confusion among Gazans over areas where it is safe to go.

Abdel Qader Ayman Bakr, who lives near the temporary boundary in the eastern part of Gaza City's Shejaiya district, told the BBC that, despite promises from Israel of clear markings, he had seen none put in place.

"Each day, we can see Israeli military vehicles and soldiers at a relatively close distance, yet we have no way of knowing whether we are in what is considered a 'safe zone' or 'an active danger zone'," he said.

"We are constantly exposed to danger, especially since we are forced to remain here because this is where our home once stood."

Since the ceasefire came into effect, the IDF has reported a number of instances of people crossing the Yellow Line. On all occasions the IDF said it fired upon those involved.

BBC Verify has obtained and geolocated footage showing the aftermath of one incident on 17 October, which the Hamas-run Civil Defence agency said killed 11 civilians - including women and children all reportedly from the same family. The agency said the Palestinians' vehicle was targeted by Israel after crossing the Yellow Line east of Gaza City in the Zeitoun neighbourhood.

The footage showed rescue workers inspecting the burnt out remnants of a vehicle and covering a nearby badly-mangled body of a child with a white sheet. BBC Verify geolocated the video to a spot around 125m over the Yellow Line marked on maps by the IDF.

The IDF said warning shots were fired towards a "suspicious vehicle" that had crossed the line. The statement added when the vehicle failed to stop troops opened fire "to remove the threat".

Meanwhile, the legal status of the boundary has also been questioned.

"Israel's obligations under the law of armed conflict do not cease even for those breaching the Yellow Line," said Dr Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne, professor of Public International Law at the University of Bristol.

"It can only target enemy fighters or those directly participating in hostilities, and in so doing it must not cause excessive civilian harm."

In a statement, an Israeli military spokesperson said: "IDF troops under the Southern Command continue to operate to remove any threat to the troops and to defend the civilians of the State of Israel."

They added that that the concrete blocks are "being placed every 200 metres".

Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to the 7 October 2023 attack, in which Hamas-led gunmen killed about 1,200 people and took 251 others as hostages.

At least 68,280 have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

Additional reporting by Erwan Rivault, Lamees Altalebi and Maha El Gaml

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

The government is under increasing pressure to gain control of the grooming gangs inquiry after abuse survivors who quit their roles in the process listed conditions for their return.

Top of the demands - published in a joint letter to the home secretary - was the resignation of Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, who the four women accuse of "betrayal" citing her response to their concerns about the inquiry's scope.

They said Phillips had lost survivors' trust and that she, as well as the chair candidates, were unfit for their roles. Her exit would mean the government was "serious about accountability", they added.

Home Office sources insist Phillips has the Home Secretary's full support.

The letter came hours after former senior police officer Jim Gamble ruled himself out of chairing the inquiry, saying focus on political "point-scoring" had created a "highly charged and toxic environment".

He was the last significant candidate after Annie Hudson, who has a background in social work, withdrew earlier in the week.

On Wednesday, Jess, which is not her real name, joined Fiona Goddard, Ellie Reynolds and Elizabeth, also not her real name, in standing down from the survivors' panel.

They raised concerns that those being lined up to lead the inquiry had backgrounds in either policing or social work, citing the failures of those services to bring their abusers to justice.

They also said the inquiry was being widened "in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse".

Phillips has said it is "untrue" the government is seeking to dilute the focus of the inquiry, insisting its scope will be "laser-focused".

In a joint letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, posted on X by Ms Reynolds, they criticise Phillips for rejecting their accounts of concerns about the inquiry's direction.

"Being publicly contradicted and dismissed by a government minister when you are a survivor telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again. It is a betrayal that has destroyed what little trust remained," they said.

Their letter lists five demands before they would consider returning to the panel.

Among them is keeping the probe focused on grooming gangs and group child exploitation, as Baroness Louise Casey - whose report recommended a statutory inquiry - advised. They also want a senior or former judge to chair the inquiry, and to have a say in their selection.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced in June there would be a national inquiry into grooming gangs covering England and Wales, with a panel of survivors set up to oversee the process. However, a chairperson has yet to be appointed.

Not all the survivors on the oversight panel agree with the four women; many continue to support the government's approach.

The BBC spoke to two of those women.

Samantha Walker-Roberts, from Oldham, wants the scope of the inquiry to include victims of other types of sexual abuse, so they are not "silenced".

She was the victim of a grooming gang when she was 12 - but she was also raped and abused by a man who groomed her online, and as a younger child she was raped and abused by older men who she met through friends.

Ms Walker-Roberts said: "This is a one-of-a-kind type of inquiry where survivors are in control and it's wrong that certain survivors get special treatment to be part of this."

She added she had no problem with a chair who had a background in policing or social work, as this had been "proven" to work with previous reviews.

Another supporter of the inquiry is Carly, from Huddersfield, who said she believes "the most effective way to drive meaningful change is from within" and remains "hopeful" the concerns raised by others "will lead to constructive improvements".

Maggie Oliver, a police whistleblower and child protection campaigner, echoed survivors' criticism of Phillips on Wednesday night, but also criticised the government's handling of the inquiry.

She told Newsnight that the prime minister was "dragged kicking and screaming" into announcing the inquiry.

"We shouldn't be fighting a battle with the government," she said. "The inquiry is being led, or has been led, by a government that really doesn't want it to work."

Ms Oliver also raised concerns about transparency and survivor involvement: "We want a judge-led inquiry... I want it to be open and to involve all survivors and victims who want to be involved, not just a cherry-picked selection of a few."

On Wednesday night, the Home Office reiterated its commitment to "a full, statutory, national inquiry to uncover the truth".

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch joined calls for Phillips to be sacked, saying the inquiry is about "Labour failure".

She said: "Labour never wanted this inquiry, we demanded it... It is Labour ministers attacking the victims. We're standing up for them."

Speaking at PMQs on Wednesday, the prime minister defended Phillips, saying she "has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls".

He said "survivors have been ignored for many years" by the state and he wanted the inquiry to change that, adding "injustice will have no place to hide."

He invited those that have quit the inquiry to re-join, but added that whether they did or not "we owe it to them" to answer their concerns.

"The inquiry is not and will never be watered down. Its scope will not change. It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry," he told MPs.

The prime minister also announced Baroness Casey was being drafted in to support the work of the inquiry.

Baroness Casey previously led a "national audit" of group-based child sexual exploitation that found the ethnicity of people involved in grooming gangs had been "shied away from" by authorities.

Her findings, published in June 2025, prompted Sir Keir to order the creation of the national inquiry.

Voters in Caerphilly are heading to the polls in a by-election to choose a new member of the Senedd.

Polls are open from 07:00 until 22:00 BST, with the result expected early on Friday morning.

The vote is taking place following the death of Labour's Hefin David, who died suddenly on 12 August aged 47 after being Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly since 2016.

There are eight candidates standing, with all the main parties represented.

The by-election will fill the vacancy until May 2026 when a Wales-wide election will decide the shape of the newly expanded Welsh Parliament.

Unlike Westminster elections, 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in this election and ID is not required at polling stations.

There will be full coverage of the result, reaction and analysis across BBC digital, television and radio services.

The full list of candidates for the by-election is:

• Liberal Democrats: Steve Aicheler
• Gwlad: Anthony Cook
• Greens: Gareth Hughes
• Conservatives: Gareth Potter
• Reform: Llyr Powell
• UKIP: Roger Quilliam
• Labour: Richard Tunnicliffe
• Plaid Cymru: Lindsay Whittle

Sunday 30 January 1972 was one of the most deadly – and consequential – days during three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland.

In the streets where it happened – the images of Bloody Sunday are painted on the walls and seared in people's minds.

A civil rights march was held on a wintry, sunny afternoon in Londonderry.

The demonstration was a protest against the policy of internment – imprisoning people without trial – which had been put in place following three years of violence.

• Not guilty verdict in Bloody Sunday murder trial
• Live reaction to Solider F verdicts

Soldiers from the Parachute Regiment shot dead 13 people in the Bogside area – which was, and still is, a strongly Irish nationalist community.

One image became particularly prominent.

Pictures showed a Catholic priest, Fr Edward Daly, waving a blood-stained white handkerchief as he tried to protect a group carrying a teenager, Jackie Duddy, who had been fatally wounded.

News camera operators captured much footage on the day.

The BBC archive features Fr Daly telling a reporter that soldiers "just seemed to fire in all directions" and he was "absolutely certain" that there was no provocation.

That version of what happened wasn't accepted by the initial investigation.

The Widgery Tribunal found the Army had been shot at first.

During the peace process, Tony Blair's government set up another inquiry, after campaigning by bereaved relatives, who said Widgery had been a whitewash.

In 2010, the report by Lord Saville said that on balance, the paratroopers had fired first and that none of the victims had posed any threat.

The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised in the House of Commons – saying killings were "unjustified and unjustifiable".

The police began to investigate.

One former paratrooper, known as Soldier F, was prosecuted for murder.

He was charged over the killings of James Wray, 22, and 26-year-old William McKinney.

Soldier F was also accused of attempting to murder Patrick O'Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon, Michael Quinn, and an unknown person.

There is a legal order preserving the veteran's anonymity, which his lawyers have argued is necessary because he is at risk of attack.

He told the Saville Inquiry that he had only fired at people who were armed.

That claim was rejected in the final report.

Material from the inquiry could not be used directly as evidence in the criminal process.

In the dock, the veteran was screened from view behind a blue curtain.

He spoke for the first time in court at a hearing in December 2024, to reply "not guilty" when the charges were put to him.

Relatives of those who were killed on Bloody Sunday travelled from Derry to Belfast Crown Court each day of the trial.

John Kelly, whose brother Michael was killed, said they always knew that listening to the proceedings would be painful.

"I can see everything in my mind's eye," John said, as we walked around the main locations mentioned in the trial – from Rossville Street, where Michael was shot dead, to the adjoining Glenfada Park, where James Wray and William McKinney were killed.

"It even takes me back to where I was that day.

"I helped to carry Michael and place him in the ambulance.

"I relived every moment during the evidence.

"But even with having to go through all that – it's still worthwhile for me."

Bereaved families had to fight a separate court case to make the trial go ahead.

In 2022, they won a legal challenge against a move by crown lawyers to drop the prosecution of Soldier F.

Prosecutors had been concerned that key evidence would not be usable in court.

On the first day of the trial, the Northern Ireland veterans' commissioner suggested that prosecutions of military personnel indicated an imbalanced approach to investigations into killings from the years known as the Troubles.

Outside the court gates, David Johnstone told the media: "There are many families of soldiers across Northern Ireland and Great Britain who have never had the truth regarding the loss of their loved one, or the opportunity of justice."

He pointed out that more than 1,000 members of the security forces had been killed during the conflict, adding: "The vast majority of the 300,000 armed forces who served in Northern Ireland did so with restraint, dignity and professionalism."

The trial was held in front of a judge only, as is standard practice in Northern Ireland for cases from the Troubles.

Joe Mahon, Joseph Friel and Michael Quinn were among the witnesses who gave evidence in person.

The accounts of other civilians were given through statements, which prosecution barristers read to the court.

A number of witnesses told how they tried to escape from intense shooting on Rossville Street by going into Glenfada Park, which is a courtyard.

But they came under fire there too, with several describing how they were shot when running away, and tried to protect themselves by lying still on the ground and pretending to be dead.

However, the only evidence which specifically said that Soldier F fired his rifle in Glenfada Park came in the form of statements from two other paratroopers, known as Soldiers G and H.

The statements were made in 1972 to the initial investigation by the Royal Military Police, and then to the Widgery Inquiry.

They said they fired shots along with Soldier F.

Soldier G has died, while Soldier H indicated he would not testify in the trial, and would use his legal protection against self-incrimination.

Defence lawyers argued that the key prosecution evidence was "fundamentally inconsistent" and was not backed up by the civilians' accounts.

On that basis, they applied to have the case dismissed.

The judge did not grant that application – but the defence continued to present the issues around the soldiers' statements as a major reason why the judge should acquit Soldier F.

The veteran himself did not testify.

His lawyer read into the record a statement which the accused gave to police – in which Soldier F said he was "sure" that he "discharged his duties", but he would not be answering questions because he no longer had "any reliable recollection" of events.

Glenfada Park is now the site of the Museum of Free Derry.

On its exterior wall, there is a patch of perspex, which preserves the circular bullet marks from Bloody Sunday.

Inside, James Wray's jacket is on display, its shoulder torn by the shots which killed him.

On a shelf in the same cabinet is a camera which William McKinney was carrying when he was shot dead.

Many historians say the killings inflamed the unrest in Northern Ireland.

After 53 years of grief, controversy and campaigning, the criminal process has ended with no conviction.

A national inquiry into grooming gangs in England and Wales has been thrown into disarray by the resignations of four women from its victim liaison panel.

So, how did we get here, and what's next for this inquiry?

What is the inquiry about?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the inquiry in June this year.

The UK government said it would "co-ordinate a series of targeted local investigations" into the group-based child sexual exploitation of girls by grooming gangs.

Called the Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs, the inquiry will have legal powers to direct targeted investigations in local areas and summon witnesses to give evidence.

The government said once an independent chair had been appointed, the inquiry would decide which local areas to investigate based on information provided by the police, abuse survivors and members of the public.

The government says the process is not being managed by the Home Office, but by the independent child exploitation charity NWG Network.

The charity provides "support and guidance to those working with children and young people who are affected by abuse".

Why was it launched?

The grooming gang scandal was first exposed in 2003, in The Times newspaper, and has often been the subject of debate, inquiry and news reports in the two decades since.

It returned to prominence at the start of this year, partly because of tech billionaire Elon Musk, who criticised the prime minister for not calling a national inquiry.

A row between the two centered on high-profile cases where groups of men, mainly of Pakistani descent, were convicted of sexually abusing and raping predominantly young white girls in towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale.

At the start of the year, the government dismissed calls for a national inquiry, arguing the scandal had already been examined in a seven-year inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay.

Professor Jay handed in her report to the then-Conservative government in 2022 but so far only two of her 20 recommendations have been implemented.

But for months, Sir Keir faced increasing political pressure for not being willing to set up a new national inquiry that was specially focused on grooming gangs.

In February this year, the prime minister commissioned veteran Whitehall troubleshooter Dame Louise Casey to evaluate the scale, nature and drivers of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) at a national and local level.

In her review, Dame Louise recommended a national inquiry, co-ordinating a series of targeted investigations, to be launched into child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

Sir Keir accepted the recommendation, saying it was "the right thing to do" based on what she had uncovered in her review.

What sparked the row over the inquiry?

The government said a panel of abuse survivors would be given a central role in the inquiry.

There are thought to be around 20 individuals on the panel, who are overseeing the process of setting up the inquiry.

This week, four women resigned from the inquiry's panel in protest at how the government had handled the process so far.

The women all wrote open letters raising similar concerns about suggestions the inquiry could be widened beyond grooming gangs, tight controls on what they could say and who they could speak to.

All four also expressed doubts about two candidates proposed to chair the inquiry.

They objected to the two because one had a background in social work and the other as a senior police officer - two professions facing questions about trust.

Both candidates have withdrawn from the process.

In her resignation letter, one of the women, Ellie Reynolds, said she felt the inquiry had become "less about the truth and more about a cover-up".

Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips denied claims of a cover-up and insisted the government was "committed to exposing the failures".

The group of four abuse survivors have been particularly critical of Phillips and demanded her resignation in a list of conditions for them to re-join the inquiry.

The women have accused Phillips of "betrayal" over comments she made about the scope of the inquiry.

On Tuesday, Philips answered an urgent question tabled in the Commons by the Conservatives on "recent criticism" of the inquiry.

Phillips told MPs "allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest or widening of the inquiry scope or dilution are false".

That prompted a response from one of the abuse survivors, Fiona Goddard who said "for Phillips to suggest that any accusations of the scope being expanded .. is untrue is a lie and she knows it".

Has the focus of the inquiry been changed?

One of the main concerns of many victims is that the inquiry must have a tight focus on the issue of grooming gangs.

Ms Goddard said the NWG Network charity had sent a list of "questions for reflection" to panel members. She published it on social media this week.

It includes "What do you most want the inquiry to achieve? What areas should it focus on? And "How can the inquiry best involve and engage victims and survivors throughout its work?"

One of the questions asks "Should the inquiry have an explicit focus on 'grooming gangs' or 'group-based CSEA' (Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse) or take a broader approach?".

Ms Goddard says she then texted Jess Phillips directly about this on Friday, 26 September.

She posted a screenshot of the text she had sent asking Phillips "sorry to message again but if it's supposed to be about grooming gangs why has the charity that the Home Office has set up to consult with survivors just sent out the agenda for the questions that are going to be asked".

She sent Phillips the question about the inquiry's focus.

Ms Goddard wrote "every which way this is being manipulated away from what it was supposed to be and it's unfair".

She also posted Phillips' reply, which said "the reason for the question is because there have been differing views and we want you to be able to give a clear steer on what you want".

Phillips added: "I know it's hard to trust but I can promise you no one is trying to manipulate the response and it is my view that it is only a grooming gangs specific inquiry but it is not right for me to make that decision without it being formally consulted on."

The victims panel began having meetings in the past week, including to question candidates being proposed to chair the inquiry.

What's next for this inquiry?

Downing Street has indicated there has been no change in the prime minister's position on Phillips' suitability for her role - and there is no suggestion that the inquiry is about to be shelved, despite the recent turmoil.

Efforts are still under way to find a chair that everyone involved can support - a process that has already taken five months.

Dame Louise Casey said she wanted the inquiry to be completed within three years - a relatively short period for inquires of this nature - but the government has not agreed to a final timeline.

Some abuse survivors and the Conservatives have called for a judge to be in charge of it.

At PMQs, Sir Keir said "whether the inquiry should be judge-led was looked at" by Dame Louise and she had decided against it for two reasons.

The prime minister said the first reason was "the speed with which we could do this".

Summarising the second reason, Sir Keir said: "One of the problems that judge-led inquiries run into - I have seen and experienced this myself - is that they are often held back until the end of the criminal investigations, and I was determined that we would be able to run the two together."

On Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer told MPs the inquiry would not be "watered down" and its scope would not change.

"It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair it," Sir Keir said.

He said Dame Louise would now support the work of the inquiry, which ministers will be hoping can help get it back track.

The British Medical Association has announced a fresh round of strikes in England after talks broke down again with the government.

The union and government have been in dialogue throughout the summer and early autumn since the last walkout at the end of July.

But the BMA said with no progress being made there would be a five-day walkout starting on Friday 14 November.

This will be the 13th strike in the long-running pay dispute since March 2023.

Health Secretary West Streeting has maintained throughout this year that he would not negotiate on pay after resident doctors, the new name for junior doctors, had received pay rises totalling nearly 30% in the past three years.

The talks, therefore, had centred on career progression, working conditions and out-of-pocket expenses like exam fees.

The union argues that, despite the pay rises, resident doctors' pay is still a fifth lower than it was in 2008, once inflation is taken into account.

They have also said they wanted the government to address what they say is a shortage of jobs after the second year of training when resident doctors move into specialty training.

This year there were more than 30,000 applicants for 10,000 jobs at this stage, although some will have been doctors from abroad.

Alongside having a mandate to strike over pay, newly-qualified doctors in their first year of practice in England have also voted in favour of strike action over this shortage of jobs.

Resident doctors represent nearly half the medical workforce and range from doctors fresh out of university through to those with up to a decade of experience.

A former member of the Parachute Regiment has been found not guilty of murder and attempted murder in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday in 1972.

Thirteen people were shot dead and at least 15 others injured on Bloody Sunday in January 1972 at a civil rights demonstration in the Bogside area of Derry.

Soldier F, whose anonymity is protected by a court order, faced charges of murdering James Wray, 22, and William McKinney, 26, as well as five charges of attempted murder.

The judge said members of the Parachute Regiment had shot unarmed civilians as they ran away, but the evidence against Soldier F had fallen well short of what is required for conviction.

• Follow live reaction to the Soldier F verdict

Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the members of the Parachute Regiment who had entered Glenfada Park North on Bloody Sunday had "totally lost all sense of military discipline".

They had, the judge said, shot "unarmed civilians fleeing from them on the streets of a British city.

"Those responsible should hang their heads in shame," he said.

Speaking outside court William McKinney's brother Mickey said the verdicts marked the "end of prosecution of Soldier F for murder and attempted murder of the innocents on Bloody Sunday".

"The families and wounded and their supporters leave this courthouse with an incredible sense of pride of our achievements," he said.

Liam Wray, brother of Jim Wray, welcomed the judge's criticism of the soldiers on Bloody Sunday, adding it was a "tough, sad and emotional" day for the family.

He said that justice had not been achieved, but that he "appreciated the difficulties the judge faced in the case".

Northern Ireland's veterans' commissioner David Johnstone said the trial had brought into focus the "deep pain" events of 50 years ago still cause.

He said the Bloody Sunday families and all families who lost relatives in the Troubles, "continue to experience pain" adding "we should not forget that today."

'Deeply disappointing'

First Minister Michelle O'Neill said it was "deeply disappointing" that the Bloody Sunday families faced a "continued denial of justice".

"For more than five decades, they have campaigned with dignity and resilience for justice for their loved ones, their deeply cherished sons and fathers, uncles and brothers," the Sinn Féin deputy leader said.

She added: "I extend my full solidarity to the families and to the wider community of Derry who will be hurting today."

Foyle Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MP Colum Eastwood said it was a "difficult day" for the Bloody Sunday families, but said they could "hold their heads up high".

"These were innocent people, no weapons, just on a civil rights march, mowed down by the parachute regiment of the British army. That's what happened and that's absolutely clear," he said.

Eastwood added: "Everybody now knows what happened on Bloody Sunday. Everybody knows the victims were innocent and everybody knows where the guilt actually lies."

'Common sense judgement'

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Gavin Robinson said he welcomed the "common sense judgement".

Robinson said the trial had been a "a painful and protracted process".

"There needs to be a better way of dealing with the legacy of the past and to ensure no rewriting of it," he said.

Doug Beattie of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) said questions should be asked as to how the case had gone to trail when "the evidence was so clearly flawed".

"Yet again, those who work in our justice system must answer questions… they would have known, without a doubt, that the evidence was unsafe and could not be relied on in court," Beattie said.

Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) MP Jim Allister said Soldier F's acquittal was "most welcome", but that it also "raises the fundamental question of why this veteran was put through the ordeal of the last few years".

'Complex legacy of the Troubles'

The British government said it noted Thursday's judgement, adding the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had "provided legal and welfare support throughout".

"This case is part of the complex legacy of the Troubles, which affected so many families and communities.

"We are committed to finding a way forward that acknowledges the past, whilst supporting those who served their country during an incredibly difficult period in Northern Ireland's history," a government spokesperson said.

A public inquiry, which concluded in 2010, found that none of the people who were killed posed any threat to the Army.

Who is Soldier F?

Soldier F is the only military veteran who has been prosecuted over the shootings.

The five charges of attempted murder related to two teenagers at the time 16-year-old Joe Mahon and 17-year-old Michael Quinn as well as Joseph Friel, who was 20, and Patrick O'Donnell, 41, and an unknown person.

The case was heard by a judge sitting without a jury at Belfast Crown.

The trial began on 15 September and lasted five weeks.

To protect his identity, Soldier F was screened from public view and his name not disclosed, as a result of a court order.

The decision to charge Soldier F was taken by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in 2019.

He was one of 18 former soldiers reported to the PPS as a result of a police investigation, which followed the public inquiry into Bloody Sunday conducted by Lord Saville.

But he was the only one charged.

Two years later, the PPS dropped the case after the collapse of the trial of two other veterans who had been accused of a 1972 murder in Belfast.

But the prosecution resumed in 2022 after a legal challenge.

US forces have struck a second vessel alleged to be carrying drugs in the Pacific Ocean, amid an escalating US campaign against seaborne drug smuggling.

Three people were killed and no US forces were harmed in the strike on Wednesday, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said. It comes a day after the US struck another boat in the Pacific, killing two people.

Both vessels were believed to be carrying drugs along known trafficking routes in international waters, Hegseth added.

The strikes are the eighth and ninth against suspected drug boats since 2 September - but the first in waters of the Pacific Ocean. Most US strikes have been in the Caribbean Sea.

"Today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out yet another lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization," Hegseth posted on X.

"These strikes will continue, day after day. These are not simply drug runners—these are narco-terrorists bringing death and destruction to our cities," Hegseth continued.

The post was accompanied by a video that appears to show a boat catching fire after being struck by a US bomb.

Floating items are then seen in the water, before they appear to be targeted by a second airstrike.

US President Donald Trump said he has the legal authority to continue bombing boats in international waters, but said he may go to the US Congress if he decides to expand targets to land.

"We're allowed to do that, and if we do (it) by land, we may go back to Congress," Trump said to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

He said his administration was "totally prepared" to expand the anti-drug operations on land, which would mark a significant escalation.

At least 37 people have been killed in the US strikes on alleged drug boats, including a recent strike on a semi-submersible vessel in the Caribbean.

Two men survived a strike last week, and were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador.

Ecuador's government later released one man - identified as Andrés Fernando Tufiño - saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The other man, from Colombia, reportedly remains hospitalised.

News of the strike comes as tensions rise between the Trump administration and the Colombian government of President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump has characterised as "a thug and a bad guy".

"He better watch it or we'll take very serious action against him and his country," Trump said. "He has led his country into a death trap."

On Sunday, Trump denounced Petro as an "illegal drug leader" who is "strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields, all over Colombia."

Trump added that the US will no longer offer subsidies to Colombia, which has historically been one of its closest allies in Latin America.

Both Colombia and nearby Ecuador have significant Pacific coastlines that experts have said are used to funnel drugs north towards the US through Central America and Mexico.

US estimates from the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, indicate that the vast majority of cocaine bound for US cities passes through the Pacific.

Drug seizures in the Caribbean - where the bulk of confirmed US strikes have so far taken place - account for a relatively small percentage of the total, although US officials have warned it is rising.

To date, US officials have offered few details on the identities of those killed in the strikes or what drug trafficking organisations they allegedly belong to.

Around 10,000 US troops, as well as dozens of military aircraft and ships, have been deployed to the Caribbean as part of the operation.