An Eritrean man is due to be flown out of the UK on Friday morning under the government's "one in, one out" deal with France, after a last-minute court bid to delay the departure failed.

He will become the second person removed from the UK under the policy when his flight leaves at 06.15.

This comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed the year-long pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.

The first flight under the agreement returned one person, an Indian national, to France on Thursday.

• First migrant deported to France under 'one in one out' deal
• Why do Channel migrants want to come to the UK?
• How many people cross the Channel in small boats?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the first return demonstrated to people attempting small boat crossings "if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you".

The Eritrean man set to fly to France on Friday morning arrived in England on a small boat in August.

His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of human trafficking.

In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday, the presiding judge said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the unnamed man.

Mr Justice Sheldon said there was "significant public interest" in removing him, noting that home secretary was acting in the public interest by pursuing a policy to combat dangerous people smuggling.

He would instead have an opportunity to make his case in France.

"There is no serious issue to be tried in this case that the claimant has been denied procedural fairness," said the judge.

The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe.

He said he had lived in France, sleeping rough, and eventually made his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England.

But in his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon noted the man had given differing accounts of his allegations of trafficking, and so it was open to the home office to conclude that "his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed".

The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.

The new policy means that a migrant who is refused protection in the UK because they have suffered slavery or trafficking may only challenge that decision after they have been flown out of the country.

The rule change also came after a different Eritrean man facing a return to France won a temporary delay. The government said it would appeal against that decision.

US President Donald Trump weighed in on illegal immigration to the UK at the end of his state visit.

During a press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he suggested using the military to combat small boat crossings.

Starmer countered by affirming that the UK had "a number of cooperation deals with other countries" in place and are taking the issue "incredibly seriously".

The Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, but it is not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.

Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.

The "one in, one out" deal is intended to deter people from turning to smugglers to cross the Channel because of the risk they could be sent back.

It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come in return.

Neither government has suggested that the plan will smash the crossings on its own.

Around 5,590 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August.

US President Donald Trump has suggested some TV networks should have their licences "taken away", as he backed America's broadcast regulator in a row over the suspension of ABC host Jimmy Kimmel.

The Disney-owned network announced on Wednesday evening it was pulling the comedian off air "indefinitely" amid a backlash over his remarks about the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week.

On Monday, Kimmel suggested the suspect was a Maga Republican, although authorities in Utah had said the alleged gunman was "indoctrinated with leftist ideology".

ABC took Jimmy Kimmel Live! off air after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened action over his remarks.

• ABC takes Jimmy Kimmel off air over Charlie Kirk comments

Trump spoke about the issue to reporters on Thursday aboard Air Force One while returning from a state visit to the UK.

"I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states [in last year's election]," the president said.

"They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a licence. I would think maybe their license should be taken away."

In his monologue on Monday, Kimmel, 57, said the "Maga gang" was "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and trying to "score political points from it".

He also likened Trump's reaction to the death of his 31-year-old political confidant to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish".

After the shooting, Kimmel had also gone on Instagram to condemn the attack and send "love" to the Kirk family.

Speaking to Fox on Thursday, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the suspension of Kimmel was not "the last shoe to drop".

"We're going to continue to hold these broadcasters accountable to the public interest," he said.

"And if broadcasters don't like that simple solution, they can turn their license into the FCC."

Kimmel's suspension was announced on Wednesday evening shortly after Nexstar Media, one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the US, said it would not air his show "for the foreseeable future".

Nexstar called his remarks about Kirk "offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse".

Carr praised Nexstar - which is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2bn (£4.5bn) merger with Tegna - and said he hoped other broadcasters would follow its lead.

Sinclair, the largest ABC affiliate group in the US, said it would air a special remembrance programme dedicated to Kirk during the original time slot for Kimmel's show on Friday.

Kirk, a high-profile conservative activist and father-of-two, died of a single gunshot wound to the neck while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem on 10 September.

His widow, Erika Kirk, was named on Thursday as the new head of the organisation her husband co-founded, Turning Point USA.

Tyler Robinson, 22, was charged with aggravated murder on Tuesday, with prosecutors saying they will seek the death penalty.

Writers, actors, former US President Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats condemned Kimmel's suspension.

Obama said the incident represented a new and dangerous level of cancel culture.

"After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like," he posted on X.

Actor Ben Stiller said it "isn't right", while Hacks star Jean Smart said she was "horrified at the cancellation".

"What Jimmy said was free speech, not hate speech," she added.

The Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild (WGA), two Hollywood labour unions, condemned the decision as a violation of constitutional free speech rights.

But others argued Kimmel's suspension was accountability, not cancel culture.

"When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it that's not cancel culture," said Dave Portnoy, who founded media company Barstool Sports.

"That is consequences for your actions."

Late-night Fox host Greg Gutfeld argued that Kimmel had "deliberately and misleadingly" blamed the killing of Kirk on the activist's "allies and friends".

British presenter Piers Morgan said Kimmel had "lied about Charlie Kirk's assassin being Maga" and his comments caused "understandable outrage all over America".

"Why is he being heralded as some kind of free speech martyr?" he added.

But one of Carr's FCC leadership colleagues, commissioner Anna Gomez, criticised the regulator's stance on Kimmel.

She said that "an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship or control".

• Listen to Americast on BBC Sounds: Is the Trump administration clamping down on America's first amendment protection of free speech?

BBC News used AI to help write the summary at the top of this article. It was edited by BBC journalists. Find out more.

Concern practice is 'endemic across the game'

Companies 'exploiting a loophole and putting fans at risk'

Inside the Etihad alongside Man City's most ardent supporters

'It's an arms race'

US President Donald Trump has said he "didn't want" London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan at the state banquet hosted by the King at Windsor Castle.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One heading back the US, Trump described Sir Sadiq as "among the worst mayors in the world", saying he had wanted to attend the event, but "I asked that he not be there".

The BBC understands Sir Sadiq did not seek or expect an invite to the state banquet, and a source close to the mayor said Trump's politics sowed "fear and division".

This latest war of words adds to the pair's tumultuous feud, with Trump in 2019 calling the mayor "a stone-cold loser" and Sir Sadiq accusing him of stirring up far-right politics.

Trump echoed his past attacks on the mayor's governing of London, calling him a "disaster" on immigration.

"I think the Mayor of London Khan is among the worst mayors in the world, and we have some bad ones," he said.

"I think he's done a terrible job. Crime in London is through the roof."

"I asked that he not be there. He wanted to be there, as I understand, I didn't want him."

In response, a source close to Sir Sadiq rejected Trump's assessment of the mayor's work.

"Trump's politics is one of fear and division. This includes talking down our great capital city," they said.

"London is a global success story - it's open, dynamic and safer than major US cities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons record numbers of Americans are choosing to make London their home."

The pair's long-running row dates back to 2015 when the Labour politician condemned Trump's suggestion that Muslims should be banned from travelling to the US. A year later, Trump challenging the mayor to an IQ test.

The US leader also attacked the mayor's handling of the London Bridge terror attack in 2017.

During the US leader's first state visit in 2019, Sir Sadiq permitted a plan to fly a giant inflatable "Trump baby" blimp to coincide with his trip.

In July, Trump took another swipe at the mayor during a press conference with Sir Keir Starmer in Scotland, calling Sir Sadiq a "nasty person", to which the prime minister interjected saying: "He's a friend of mine, actually."

The US president's second state visit to the UK - unprecedented for a non-royal - was largely marked by pomp and ceremony to signal the warm relations between the two allies.

However, it was also mired by protests as thousands gathered in Parliament Square.

Four men were arrested after images of Trump and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were projected on to Windsor Castle ahead of the state banquet.

The Republic of Ireland has committed to new legislation that will ensure full co-operation with a reformed UK legacy body dealing with cases related to the Northern Ireland Troubles.

It is part of a "new framework" agreed between the British and Irish governments, to be unveiled on Friday.

It also involves a legacy unit being set-up within An Garda Síochána (the Irish police force) and a €25m (£22m) support fund for victims.

The deal seeks to heal a rift between London and Dublin created by the current Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act.

Victims' groups and political parties have been briefed on the agreement, which will require new legislation to be passed in both the UK and Ireland in the months ahead.

Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Tánaiste (Irish deputy PM) Simon Harris will jointly launch the agreement.

Harris is expected to describe it as "an imperfect opportunity" to deal with the legacy issue.

The two governments have been seeking a reset on legacy issues since the UK general election last year.

A core part of the deal involves significant changes to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).

It will be renamed the Legacy Commission, with a new oversight board established.

Irish state bodies, such as the gardaí (Irish police), which do not currently assist ICRIR investigations, will begin co-operating once the changes come into effect.

The new gardaí legacy unit will be a single-point of contact on Troubles-related cases for victims and bereaved families.

A separate body will also be created to accept information about Troubles-related murders.

London and Dublin believe the two bodies reflect what was agreed, but never implemented, under the Stormont House Agreement in 2014.

What is the Legacy Act?

The current Legacy Act, passed by the last UK government in 2023, was widely opposed by Labour, all Northern Ireland parties, several victims' groups and the Irish government.

It created a new legacy body known as the ICRIR to take over all Troubles-era cases from 1 May 2024, including those on the desk of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The act shut down all historical inquests.

The act's most controversial element, the offer of conditional immunity to suspects, was disapplied following legal action by bereaved families.

The court ruled this part of the act was incompatible with human rights legislation and the Windsor Framework.

Labour pledged to repeal the Legacy Act and replace it after winning the last election, including agreeing a way forward with Dublin.

The act included controversial measures, such as allowing the ICRIR to grant conditional amnesties in return for information.

However, this and other aspects of the act were later ruled unlawful.

Ireland launched an inter-state case against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

This is unlikely to be withdrawn until after the UK passes new legacy legislation, which will include the overhaul of the ICRIR.

'This could be doomed to fail'

Emmett McConomy, whose 11-year-old brother Stephen was killed by a soldier in Londonderry in 1982, said any long-awaited new framework to address the legacy of the Troubles must "meet the needs of all victims."

Speaking to BBC Radio Foyle's North West Today programme ahead of Friday's announcement, Mr McConomy said he hopes the new framework will bring "positive change" and be "a step in the right direction" for the many people affected by the conflict in Northern Ireland.

However, he expressed concern about the level of engagement both governments had undertaken with victims regarding the framework.

"Without proper buy-in from victims," he said, "this could sadly be doomed to fail."

"The most important people in all of this are the victims.

"What input have we had into these proposals? For me, I don't believe there has been much consultation - at least none that I am aware of.

"If the people this is designed for are not consulted or brought in at the early stages of developing these mechanisms, then surely they are doomed to fail.

"Transparency, integrity, independence, and a genuine desire to get to the truth and acknowledge families must be at the centre of whatever is being done."

The Taliban government has removed books written by women from the university teaching system in Afghanistan as part of a new ban which has also outlawed the teaching of human rights and sexual harassment.

Some 140 books by women - including titles like "Safety in the Chemical Laboratory" - were among 680 books found to be of "concern" due to "anti-Sharia and Taliban policies".

The universities were further told they were no longer allowed to teach 18 subjects, with a Taliban official saying they were "in conflict with the principles of Sharia and the system's policy".

The decree is the latest in a series of restrictions which the Taliban have brought in since returning to power four years ago.

Just this week, fibre-optic internet was banned in at least 10 provinces on the orders of the Taliban's supreme leader in a move officials said was to prevent immorality.

While the rules have had an impact on many aspects of life, women and girls have been particularly hard-hit: they are barred from accessing education over the sixth grade, with one of their last routes to further training cut off in late 2024, when midwifery courses were quietly shuttered.

Now even university subjects about women have been targeted: six of the 18 banned are specifically about women, including Gender and Development, The Role of Women in Communication, and Women's Sociology.

The Taliban government has said it respects women's rights in accordance with their interpretation of Afghan culture and Islamic law.

'A void in education'

A member of the committee reviewing the books confirmed the ban on books written by women, telling BBC Afghan that "all books authored by women are not allowed to be taught".

Zakia Adeli, the former deputy minister of justice prior to the Taliban's return and one of the authors who has found their books on the banned list, was unsurprised by the move.

"Considering what the Taliban have done over the past four years, it was not far-fetched to expect them to impose changes on the curriculum," she said.

"Given the Taliban's misogynistic mindset and policies, it is only natural that when women themselves are not allowed to study, their views, ideas and writings are also suppressed."

The new guidelines, which have been seen by BBC Afghan, were issued in late August.

Ziaur Rahman Aryubi, the deputy academic director of the Taliban government's Ministry of Higher Education, said in a letter to universities that the decisions had been made by a panel of "religious scholars and experts".

As well as books by women, the ban appears to have targeted books by Iranian authors or publishers, with one member of the book review panel telling the BBC it was designed to "prevent the infiltration of Iranian content" into the Afghan curriculum".

In the 50-page list sent to all universities in Afghanistan, 679 titles appear, 310 of which are either authored by Iranian writers or published in Iran.

But a professor at one institution, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he feared it would be almost impossible to fill the gap.

"Books by Iranian authors and translators serve as the primary link between Afghanistan's universities and the global academic community. Their removal creates a substantial void in higher education," they said.

A professor at Kabul University told the BBC that under such circumstances, they are forced to prepare textbook chapters themselves, taking into account the do's and don'ts imposed by the Taliban government.

But the crucial question is whether these chapters can be prepared according to global standards or not.

The BBC has approached the Taliban's Ministry of Education for comment.

Sanctions for doctors guilty of sexual misconduct in the UK are too lenient in around a quarter of cases, a review suggests.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) stands accused of failing victims and compounding their trauma. The criticism is based on the outcomes of 46 cases with offences including harassment, rape, and assaults of patients, colleagues and children.

Some medics were handed suspensions instead of following General Medical Council advice to strike them off the medical register.

The MPTS says it recognises the impact tribunal decisions have on all those involved and will soon publish new guidance for tribunals.

The MPTS is the body that takes evidence and rules on whether doctors are fit to practice in the United Kingdom.

It is independent of but funded by and accountable to the doctors' regulator - the General Medical Council - responsible for investigating complaints and bringing prosecutions against doctors.

This new study by six independent academics, analysed 222 MPTS tribunal cases heard between August 2023 and August 2024.

Of these cases, 46 involved proven sexual misconduct.

Harassment and grooming

One of the 46 cases from 2024 involved a UK transplant surgeon who was given an eight month suspension despite misconduct spanning over a decade.

He was accused of abuses of power, targeting multiple trainees under his supervision, sexual harassment, non-consensual touching during surgery and racism.

The General Medical Council (GMC) wanted to strike him off altogether and, along with the Professional Standards Authority, appealed what was seen as a lenient MPTS decision.

Another more recent case involved a doctor who knowingly entered into a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient whom he had pursued and groomed from the age of 14.

He was suspended for 12 months rather than struck off.

The panel cited evidence of insight, remediation, and remorse.

The report authors highlighted inconsistency in the sanctions imposed on doctors, a chronic lack of training for tribunal members and poor support for victims and witnesses.

'A system more skilled at facilitating abusers'

Most of these cases involving sexual misconduct - 65% - led to doctors being struck off and barred from practicing, but 35% resulted in only a short suspension.

Nearly one in four sanctions (23.9%) imposed in these cases were more lenient than recommendations from the GMC and in no case did the tribunal impose tougher sanctions.

All the doctors involved in the sexual misconduct cases were men, and almost all of them were consultants, GPs or registrars.

Several cases involved multiple victims, which the researchers say demonstrates repeated and systemic abuse - some over a period of 9 years.

Mei Nortley, a consultant vascular surgeon and lead author of the research says the MPTS needs to consider whether it is doing its job properly.

"Allowing rapists, sexual predators and those who use manipulation and coercion to return as practising doctors brings this into question," he said.

In recent months, the MPTS has begun to update its guidance for tribunals and on sanctions, focusing on sexual misconduct cases.

But the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS England) said the finding show the current system of medical regulation is failing.

Vice President Prof Vivien Lees, Vice President of RCS England, said: "Guidance alone is not enough. Tribunal panels must be trained and apply it consistently to ensure fair, robust decisions.

"RCS England will hold the MPTS to account to ensure these vital changes are fully delivered."

The General Medical Council said it takes "a zero-tolerance and proactive approach" to all forms of sexual misconduct.

"Where we feel the sanctions applied by the independent tribunal are too lenient – we can, and do appeal.

"A significant proportion of our appeals are successful and result in stronger sanctions."

Failing staff and patients

Tamzin Cuming and Prof Carrie Newlands from the Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery (WPSMS) said: "Right now, the system gives little more than a slap on the wrist for abuse, when only erasure and accountability can ensure safety.

"Without reform, powerful perpetrators will continue with impunity.

A spokesman for the MPTS said it was important that doctors had a fair hearing.

"We will soon publish a new suite of guidance for tribunals, covering all aspects of our hearings.

"It will draw together existing guidance and recent case law, as well as best practice from other jurisdictions, to assist tribunals in reaching consistent and well-reasoned decisions," he said.

Joy Crookes knows a thing or two about music.

As a kid, her dad encouraged her to soak up the classics, from Nick Cave and King Tubby to The Pogues and hours of music from Pakistan.

"He'd say, 'This is from your ends of the world, you should hear this'," says the singer, who's of Irish-Bangladeshi heritage.

Before long, she'd bought her first album (Marvin Gaye's What's Going On) and uploaded her first cover to YouTube, playing a cheap guitar she bought in Argos.

Her debut album, Skin, was released in 2021, earning a Mercury Prize nomination for its soulful, perceptive ballads. The following summer, Crookes played Glastonbury's Pyramid Stage for the first time, bursting into tears at the scale of the occasion.

But as a music nerd, who'd devoured back issues of NME magazine as a teenager, she knew what came next: The second album slump.

Except... it never came.

"People think the scary part of your second album is the writing," she says. "Like, 'Oh no, what am I going to say?'"

"For me, I've always got something to [expletive] say, so it wasn't that difficult to write.

Work on her second album, Juniper, started years ago. Crookes posted demos and early sketches on her Instagram feed in 2022, many of which have made the final track listing. So what took so long?

"Making sure that the songs sounded the way they should, to match the songwriting," she says. "That was the hard part."

Take her recent single Perfect Crime. A slinky, smoky dancefloor filler, it finds Crookes giving herself a pep talk as she prepares to plunge back into the dating world.

Fresh and funny and light on its feet – it needed "20 or 30" different takes before she was satisfied.

"It's incredibly janky but, for me, the jank is the important thing," she says. If it was polished, it'd ruin the fun of the song.

"If you go through the individual elements, there are crazy moments that make no sense – but that's what makes the song come together."

If that makes her sound like an obsessive perfectionist, think again. Other songs on Juniper – from the emotionally exposing Mother, to the brutal break-up ballad Mathematics – were recorded in a single session.

On the album's philosophical closer, Paris, she even lets herself sing off key – preferring the honesty of that vocal to a more polished, auto-tuned alternative.

"Growing up, my dad used to talk about how Van Morrison would 'let go' in his songs - there's moments in Listen to the Lion and Astral Weeks where he's just free.

"And I think for the first time ever in my career, and just as a person, I let myself go on this record."

Anxiety attacks

The journey to accepting those imperfections was rough: There's a second, more distressing, reason that Crookes' second album took so long.

The 26-year-old had always suffered from anxiety but, sometime around 2022, it tightened its grip.

After wrapping up the promotion of her debut record, she entered what she describes as a "very hedonistic phase in my personal life".

"I had very little self worth," she explains. "I was constantly trying to escape my body and my life."

During that time, she also found herself in an abusive relationship, the end of which triggered a protracted period of poor mental health.

"The anxiety had become so significant that it had become completely physical," she says.

"It wasn't just panic attacks. I couldn't keep food down. Everything I did involved me having a vomiting attack."

With the help of some "very intrusive" therapy, she began to make a recovery – but it was hard work.

Anxiety had become so familiar that it was like "a part of my family, a part of my friendship group," she says.

Letting go meant unlearning years of habitual behaviour.

It's a process she sings about on First Last Dance: "It's high time you let me go… but breaking up is so hard to do".

"The song is specifically about the vomiting - and how I cannot let [anxiety] take over that much," she says.

"So it's not necessarily, 'Goodbye anxiety, I can't have you any more,' even though I'd love for it to be that simple.

"It's more like, 'I can't have you be so prominent that I physically cannot function'."

The song marked a turning point – something she illustrates by pairing the subject matter with a feathery, Kylie-esque dance beat.

For the rest of the album, she's sorting out her priorities.

I Know You'd Kill is a tribute to her manager, Charlie, whose protective instincts kicked in when a person on the fringes of Crookes' team began behaving in a way that made others "feel unsafe".

"Charlie said,' Well, you know I'd kill for you'," recalls Crookes.

"I couldn't look at her because she looked like diamonds," she adds, confessing she may have been on mushrooms at the time. "I had to turn away from her because she was shining so brightly."

It was a reminder that, as dark as things had become, she had real friends. With their support, and as her mental health improved, Crookes began to rediscover herself.

On the strutting, guitar-driven Somebody To You, she waves goodbye to a suffocating relationship and asks: "Who am I when I'm out of your sight?"

It's not just about romantic partners, she explains, but the music industry, and public perception.

"I've been in this industry since I was a child, and I don't really want to be defined by just music," she says.

"I'd like to think that my life is a plethora of things. My identity is complex."

As if to prove it, she recently made her film debut in Ish – the story of two best friends whose friendship is tested by an ugly and heavy-handed police stop and search.

The role took Crookes, who plays an older sister to the lead character, all the way to the Venice Film Festival, where the movie won the coveted audience award.

She's had other film offers since, but she has her sights set on being part of Gurinder Chadha's sequel to Bend It Like Beckham - on the soundtrack, on the screen, "or preferably both".

The original, which starred Parminder Nagra and Keira Knightley, had a profound impact on her as a child.

"I mean, it literally touches on brownness and Irishness - and you can tell that there was a time where it was meant to be a lesbian story, as well.

"I'm really interested in how [the sequel] turns out," she says.

For now, though, Crookes is gearing up for the release of Juniper. A testament to her strength, it's rich and profound, unafraid to confront complexity, but peppered with heart and humour. The second album slump has been sent packing.

Even so, sending the record into the world has prompted mixed emotions.

"When you overcome stuff like that, one minute you feel so proud and the next you feel so sad for yourself that you went through such a hard time," she reflects.

"It's what makes releasing this album so euphoric and so sad at the same time."

The next album, which she's already working on, will be different. Crookes is happy, relaxed, free. It's a state of mind she couldn't have imagined in 2022.

"It's kind of amazing. I pinch myself every day. I'm making jokes about stuff that would have absolutely floored me two years ago.

"I feel very alive at the moment, and I am so grateful."

Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.

An Eritrean man is due to be flown out of the UK on Friday morning under the government's "one in, one out" deal with France, after a last-minute court bid to delay the departure failed.

He will become the second person removed from the UK under the policy when his flight leaves at 06.15.

This comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed the year-long pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.

The first flight under the agreement returned one person, an Indian national, to France on Thursday.

• First migrant deported to France under 'one in one out' deal
• Why do Channel migrants want to come to the UK?
• How many people cross the Channel in small boats?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the first return demonstrated to people attempting small boat crossings "if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you".

The Eritrean man set to fly to France on Friday morning arrived in England on a small boat in August.

His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of human trafficking.

In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday, the presiding judge said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the unnamed man.

Mr Justice Sheldon said there was "significant public interest" in removing him, noting that home secretary was acting in the public interest by pursuing a policy to combat dangerous people smuggling.

He would instead have an opportunity to make his case in France.

"There is no serious issue to be tried in this case that the claimant has been denied procedural fairness," said the judge.

The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe.

He said he had lived in France, sleeping rough, and eventually made his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England.

But in his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon noted the man had given differing accounts of his allegations of trafficking, and so it was open to the home office to conclude that "his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed".

The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.

The new policy means that a migrant who is refused protection in the UK because they have suffered slavery or trafficking may only challenge that decision after they have been flown out of the country.

The rule change also came after a different Eritrean man facing a return to France won a temporary delay. The government said it would appeal against that decision.

US President Donald Trump weighed in on illegal immigration to the UK at the end of his state visit.

During a press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he suggested using the military to combat small boat crossings.

Starmer countered by affirming that the UK had "a number of cooperation deals with other countries" in place and are taking the issue "incredibly seriously".

The Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, but it is not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.

Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.

The "one in, one out" deal is intended to deter people from turning to smugglers to cross the Channel because of the risk they could be sent back.

It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come in return.

Neither government has suggested that the plan will smash the crossings on its own.

Around 5,590 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August.

The prime minister and his team are delighted – and relieved.

State visits are far from a new tool in the British armoury of soft power, but they are frequently a useful one – and particularly with an unpredictable ally with an abiding love for the UK in general and its monarchy in particular.

That was why, back in February and brandished with a flourish, Sir Keir Starmer delivered the King's invitation to US President Donald Trump for a second such visit.

Gratefully received as it was, his British hosts still needed to pull it off, and the prime minister still needed to make it through the potential rollercoaster of a news conference with his guest.

And that is what Sir Keir managed and so hence his team's relief.

They have now – on several occasions – managed to tame Trump during their joint public appearances.

It is not that the two men agree on everything, far from it.

Their instincts, communication styles and politics are wildly different, but Trump's disagreements with Sir Keir were somehow channelled past him, rather than at him.

The UK is expected to recognise a Palestinian state in the coming days - when, from Downing Street's perspective, the president is safely back on his own side of the Atlantic. The president acknowledged to me he disagrees with the prime minister on this.

He said so explicitly, but gently, and only at the end of a lengthy answer which the Starmer would have agreed with the thrust of.

Even his remarks about illegal immigration, while headline making, seem to have less impact in this the second half of the first year of his second term. The president's willingness to comment on the internal politics of an ally feels more priced in, and so carries less shock value for many.

In advance of the news conference, there had been much speculation about the potential for his mood to sour instantly on the mention of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But, confronted by it and asked in particular about Epstein's friendship with the former British Ambassador to the United States Lord Mandelson, he instantly smothered it as if with a fire blanket.

His answer was curious, claiming he didn't know Lord Mandelson – despite them meeting in the White House last week, for a start.

Downing Street may allow themselves to hope theirs is a relationship with the Trump administration that is normalising and - whisper it - at least some of the time bordering on the conventional, and so less demanding on the bandwidth and mental energy devoted to it in its early months.

The caveat, of course, with Donald Trump, is you never know.

This state visit provided the UK with invaluable face time with the president – and so the opportunity to both set out the UK's position and attempt to persuade.

The prime minister has been successful in the former, but the persuasion bit? That's rather more tricky.

Why do leaves change colour in autumn?

Best time for autumn leaves

The helicopter carrying US President Donald Trump was forced to divert to Luton Airport as he finished his state visit to the UK.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said "due to a minor hydraulic issue", the aircraft landed at a "local airfield" before later reaching Stansted around 20 minutes behind schedule.

She said the decision was taken "out of an abundance of caution" adding that the president and first lady "safely boarded the support helicopter".

Emergency services were spotted on the tarmac at Luton following the landing.

Separate images show both of Trump's helicopters, known as Marine One and Marine Two, just off Luton's runway.

Marine One and Marine Two are specially adapted aircraft known as "white tops" because of their livery.

They are fitted with missile defence and radar jamming systems as well as electronics designed to withstand the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear blast.

As a security measure, Marine One often flies in a group of identical helicopters acting as decoys.

It is also usually accompanied by two or three Osprey MV-22s - tilt-rotor aircraft referred to as "green tops" that combine the vertical landing ability of a helicopter with the flying speed and efficiency of an aeroplane.

The Ospreys carry support staff, special forces and secret service agents, who are tasked with dealing with any mid-flight emergency.

Trump had been using the Marine One helicopter to travel between different locations on his unprecedented second state visit to the UK.

He arrived at Stansted late on Tuesday night and was flown to Winfield House in central London - the official residence of the US ambassador to the UK.

The following day, President Trump and his wife flew to Windsor Castle where they met the King and Queen.

On Thursday, Trump was taken on Marine One from Windsor to Chequers for diplomatic talks with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

During a joint news conference at Chequers, the two leaders addressed a range of issues, including Ukraine, Gaza and illegal migration - a subject which Trump suggested Britain could solve by calling in the military.

Trump said he had "a disagreement with the prime minister" on the subject of Palestinian statehood.

Starmer plans to recognise Palestinian statehood ahead of next week's United Nations general assembly in New York.

Some people in France were upset to learn this week that their political chaos was being laughed at… by the Italians.

In less than two years France has gone through five prime ministers, a political feat unsurpassed even in Rome's times of post-war political turbulence.

And now, the French parliament – reconfigured after the president's decision to hold a snap election in July 2024 – is struggling to produce a majority capable of passing a budget.

Add to this a general strike on Thursday called by unions opposed to previous budget proposals. The strike saw a third of the country's teachers walk out and most pharmacies shut, with many underground lines in Paris shut too.

Newspapers in Rome and Turin exhibited a distinct gioia maligna (malicious joy) in recounting recent events. There was the humiliation of the recently departed Prime Minister François Bayrou, the warnings of spiralling debt and the prospect of the French economy needing to be bailed out by the IMF.

But most of all, there was the fading glory of the president, Emmanuel Macron.

"So where is the grandeur now?" asked Il Messaggero.

The cost of servicing national debt this year is estimated to be €67 billion - it now consumes more money than all government departments except education and defence.

Forecasts suggest that by the end of the decade it will outstrip even them, reaching €100 billion a year.

Last Friday, the ratings agency Fitch downgraded French debt, potentially making it more expensive for the French government to borrow, reflecting growing doubts about the country's stability and ability to service that debt.

The possibility of having to turn, cap in hand, to the International Monetary Fund for a loan or to require intervention from the European Central Bank, is no longer fanciful.

And all this against a background of international turmoil: war in Europe, disengagement by the Americans, the inexorable rise of populism.

Last Wednesday there was a national day of protest organised by a group called Bloquons Tout (Let's Block Everything). Hijacked by the far-left, it made little impact bar some high-visibility street clashes.

But a much bigger test came yesterday, with unions and left-wing parties organising mass demonstrations against the government's plans.

In the words of veteran political commentator Nicolas Baverez: "At this critical moment, when the very sovereignty and freedom of France and Europe are at stake, France finds itself paralysed by chaos, impotence and debt."

President Macron insists he can extricate the country from the mess but he has just 18 months remaining of his second term.

One possibility is that the country's inherent strengths – its wealth, infrastructure, institutional resilience – will see it through what many feel is a historic turning-point.

But there is another scenario: that it emerges permanently weakened, prey to extremists of left and right, a new sick man of Europe.

Tensions with prime ministers

All of this dates back to Macron's disastrous dissolution of the National Assembly in the early summer of 2024. Far from producing a stronger basis for governing, the new parliament was now split three ways: centre, left and far-right.

No single group could hope to form a functioning government because the other two would always unite against it.

Michel Barnier and then François Bayrou each staggered through a few months as prime minister, but both fell on the central question that faces all governments: how the state should raise and spend its money.

Bayrou, a 74-year-old centrist, made a totem out of the question of French debt – which now stands at more than €3 trillion, or around 114% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

He wanted to stabilise repayments by cutting €44 billion from the 2026 budget.

Bayrou was brought down when the left and far-right MPs united in a vote of confidence last week, but polls showed that many voters were also hostile to the prime minister's ideas, such as abolishing two national holidays to pay for more defence.

Emmanuel Macron's immediate recourse has been to entrust a member of his inner circle to pioneer a new approach.

Sébastien Lecornu, the 39- year-old named as prime minister last week, is a quietly-spoken Norman who became a presidential confidant over late-night sessions of whisky-and-chat at the Elysée.

Following the appointment, Macron said he was convinced "an agreement between the political forces is possible while respecting the convictions of each."

Macron is said to appreciate Lecornu's loyalty, and a sense that his prime minister is not obsessed with his own political future.

After tensions with his two predecessors – the veterans Michel Barnier and François Bayrou – today the president and prime minister see eye-to-eye.

"With Lecornu, it basically means that Macron is prime minister," argues Philippe Aghion, an economist who has advised the president and knows him well.

"Macron and Lecornu are essentially one."

Lecornu's Herculean task

Macron wants Lecornu to carry out a shift. From leaning mainly towards the political right, Macron now wants a deal with the left – specifically the Socialist Party (PS).

By law, Lecornu needs to have tabled a budget by mid-October. This must then be passed by year-end.

Arithmetically the only way he can do that is if his centrist bloc is joined by "moderates" to its right and left – in other words the conservative Republicans (LR) and the Socialists (PS).

But the problem is this: every concession to one side makes it only more likely that the other side will walk out.

For example, the Socialists – who feel the wind in their sails – are demanding a much lower target for debt reduction. They want a tax on ultra-rich entrepreneurs; and an abrogation of Macron's pension reform of 2023 (which raised the retirement age to 64).

But these ideas are anathema to pro-business Republicans, who have threatened to vote against any budget that includes them.

The main employers' union MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) has even said it will stage its own "mass demonstrations" if Lecornu's answer to the budget impasse is to raise more taxes.

Making the situation even more intractable is the timing: the pending departure of Macron makes it all the more unlikely that either side will make concessions. There are important municipal elections in March, and then the presidential elections in May 2027.

At either end of the political checkerboard are powerful parties – the National Rally (RN) on the right, France Unbowed (LFI) on the left – who will be shouting "treason" at the slightest sign of compromise with the centre.

And for any politician of note, there may well be an instinct to limit to the absolute minimum any contact with the fast-eroding asset that is Emmanuel Macron.

So Lecornu's task is Herculean. At best, he might just cobble together a deal and ward off immediate defeat in the Assembly. But such a budget would necessarily be truncated. The signal to the markets would be more French fudge. The cost of servicing debt would rise further.

The alternative is failure, and the resignation of yet another PM.

That way is Macron's doomsday scenario: another dissolution leading to more elections which Marine Le Pen's National Rally might win this time.

Or even – as some are demanding – the resignation of Macron himself for his role in presiding over the impasse.

The conjuncture of several crises

Studying France, it is always possible to strike a less "catastrophist" note. After all, the country has been through crises in the past and always muddled through and some see things to admire in Macron's France.

For the former LR president Jean-Francois Copé, "the fundamentals of the French economy, including its balance of imports and exports, remain solid.

"Our level of unemployment is traditionally higher than the UK's but nothing disastrous. We have a high level of business creation, and better growth than in Germany."

Aghion, the former Macron adviser, is also relatively sanguine. "We are not about to go under, Greece-style," he says. "And what Bayrou said about debt was an effective wake-up call."

But to others the shifting state of world affairs makes such remarks feel overly optimistic, if not complacent.

According to economist Philippe Dessertine, director of the Institute of High Finance in Paris, "we can't just wave away the hypothesis of IMF intervention, the way the politicians do.

"It is like we are on a dyke. It seems solid enough. Everyone is standing on it, and they keep telling us it's solid. But underneath the sea is eating away, until one day it all suddenly collapses.

"Sadly, that is what will happen if we continue to do nothing."

According to Françoise Fressoz of Le Monde newspaper, "We have all become totally addicted to public spending. It's been the method used by every government for half a century – of left and right – to put out the fires of discontent and buy social peace.

"Everyone can sense now that this system has run its course. We're at the end of the old welfare state. But no one wants to pay the price or face up to the reforms which need to be made."

What is happening in France now is the conjuncture of several crises at once: political, economic, and social – and that is what makes the moment feel so significant.

In the words of pollster Jerome Fourquet last week, "It is like an incomprehensible play being acted out in front of an empty theatre."

Voters are told that debt is a matter of national life or death, but many either don't believe it, or can't see why they should be the ones to pay.

Presiding over it all is a man who came to power in 2017 vested with hope, and promising to bridge the gap between left and right, business and labour, growth and social justice, Euro-sceptics and Euro-enthusiasts.

Following this latest debacle, forthright French commentator Nicolas Baverez drew a devastating conclusion in Le Figaro: "Emmanuel Macron is the real target of the people's defiance, and he bears entire responsibility for this shipwreck.

"Like all demagogues, he has transformed our country into a field of ruins."

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.

There is little doubt that Donald Trump was more enthused about the day he spent at Windsor Castle than his talks with Sir Keir Starmer at Chequers.

And that is no slight on the UK prime minister's hospitality during this state visit, which Trump and his team have been eager to praise.

Starmer's country residence is undoubtedly an impressive meeting place, and there was even an aerial display by the British Army's Red Devils who flew enormous British and American flags to welcome the US leader to the Buckinghamshire countryside.

But as much as Trump appears to genuinely like Starmer, with their warm relationship on display at a joint news conference on Thursday, the president was totally beguiled by being hosted by the King and Queen on Wednesday.

According to his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, his definitive highlight of the trip was the elaborate evening banquet for 160 guests in Windsor Castle's St George's Hall that evening.

For Trump, who has a deep and longstanding admiration for the Royals, it is hard to compete with being toasted by the King. No matter how many jets are laid on for you in the skies above Chequers.

State visits like these allow presidents and prime ministers to connect with one other on a more personal level, and offer a chance for their respective staff to build working relationships. They are also an opportunity to demonstrate the closeness of relations on a big stage.

In this sense, it was smooth sailing for both sides.

• Key takeaways from Trump-Starmer news conference
• Trump suggests Starmer could use military to control UK borders
• In pictures: Trump and Melania meet royals at Windsor

There was no real awkwardness during the joint news conference, which had the potential to expose areas of disagreements.

When the two men were asked about one of those issues, the UK's plan to recognise Palestinian statehood, Trump said he disagreed but also gave Starmer a big smile and a warm slap on the back as the prime minister condemned Hamas.

And on another potentially tricky topic, the sacking of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Trump was unusually taciturn. He said very little and immediately deferred to Starmer.

The two leaders did discuss Gaza and Ukraine when they spent almost an hour talking alone without any of their staff in the room. And while they were very amicable during the news conference, it also quickly became clear that neither had changed their positions on the key issues where they disagree.

There are limits to how much influence any leader can have on Trump, regardless of the success of a trip such as this.

Inside Chequers, I asked Wiles, the president's chief-of-staff, how much difference the visit will make to Britain's ability to influence US policy on trade, tariffs and international affairs. Her response was frank – none at all.

However much Trump enjoyed this state visit, he is not going to alter his positions on important global matters because of a memorable night spent at Windsor Castle.

But after all the pomp and pageantry, Starmer appears to have at least earned the right to respectfully disagree with Trump without paying a diplomatic penalty.

It can be costly to get on the wrong side of the US president, but by carefully navigating the relationship the UK has managed to avoid the punishingly high trade tariffs that have been imposed on other nations. Starmer, meanwhile, has not been subjected to a humiliating dressing down or given a derogatory nickname.

While this was never going to descend into the kind of awkward clash we've seen at times in the Oval Office this year - not just with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky but with other leaders too - it is notable that a more relaxed Trump approached the questions during the concluding news conference in a far less combative way than he often does back in Washington.

Did the UK prime minister play his "trump" card by arranging this lavish state visit? It was choreographed flawlessly and clearly delighted Trump and the first lady.

And while Starmer may not have won the ability to change the president's mind, a falling out now feels further away than ever before.

ABC has pulled late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off air indefinitely over comments he made about the shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.

"Jimmy Kimmel Live will be pre-empted indefinitely," a spokesperson for the Disney-owned network said in a statement to the BBC.

On Monday night's monologue, Kimmel said the "MAGA gang" was trying to score political points off Kirk's murder.

On Tuesday, a 22-year-old suspect appeared in court charged with aggravated murder over last Wednesday's shooting of the 31-year-old conservative influencer.

The announcement came after one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the US, Nexstar Media, said it would not air Jimmy Kimmel Live! "for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight's show".

Nexstar said on Wednesday that the comedian's remarks about Kirk "are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse".

"[W]e do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located," said Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar's broadcasting division.

"Continuing to give Mr Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue."

Representatives for Kimmel did not immediately respond to the BBC's requests for comment.

Kimmel said in his Monday night monologue: "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

The late-night host, who has frequently been in the crosshairs of US President Donald Trump, also criticised flags being flown at half staff in honour of Kirk, and mocked Trump's reaction to the shooting.

He spliced a clip of the president speaking with reporters about his reaction to Kirk's death and redirecting to talk about a ballroom being built at the White House.

"He's at the fourth stage of grief," Kimmel said. "Construction. It's demolition, construction.

"This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a gold fish."

Elon Musk's controversial comments at the Unite the Kingdom rally in London have raised doubts over his fellowship of the Royal Society - the world's most prestigious scientific institution.

Addressing the rally organised by right-wing activist Tommy Robinson, Musk criticised "uncontrolled migration" and said: "Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die."

In response, Sir Adrian Smith, president of the Society, wrote a letter to fellows in which he raised concerns about "resorting to the language of violence" and the threat it posed to the organisation's values.

He said the matter would be discussed at the society's next council meeting.

Elon Musk was first elected a fellow of the UK's national academy of sciences in 2018, for his work in the space and electric vehicle industries. But his continued participation in the Royal Society has grown increasingly controversial.

Earlier this year, thousands of scientists signed a letter raising concerns about his involvement in funding cuts to US scientific research, as part of his previous role in Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.

The Society debated his fellowship in March but it was decided he would remain. Some fellows said any attempts to remove him could be seen as a curtailment of freedom of expression.

• Elon Musk sparks row at Royal Society

Without refencing Musk directly, Sir Adrian Smith wrote to fellows: "I am sure that many of you will share my concern at the events of the last week and the growing tendency to resort to the language of violence in pursuit of political programmes - including, unfortunately, an address to the recent London rally from a Fellow of the Royal Society."

He went on to say that: "Most of us have had the good fortune to have lived our lives in contexts where core values of tolerance, courtesy, respect for others, and freedom of speech have been widely acknowledged and respected and we have come to take them for granted."

"It is no accident that human understanding and science have also flourished to an extraordinary extent in this period. Threats to these values are now real," he finished.

Addressing the crowds on Saturday via video link, Musk said: "I think there's something beautiful about being British and what I see happening here is a destruction of Britain, initially a slow erosion but rapidly increasing erosion of Britain with massive uncontrolled migration.

"This is a message to the reasonable centre, the people who ordinarily wouldn't get involved in politics, who just want to live their lives.

"They don't want that, they're quiet, they just go about their business.

"My message is to them: if this continues, that violence is going to come to you, you will have no choice. You're in a fundamental situation here.

"Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die, that's the truth, I think."

Any decision to remove Mr Musk would be a significant moment in the organisation's history. It is 250 years since a member of the Royal Society was ejected: German scientist and writer Rudolf Erich Raspe, who was accused of theft and fraud.

Mr Musk has been approached for comment by BBC News sent via his companies Tesla and Space X.

MI6 is launching its own dedicated portal on the dark web in the hope of attracting new spies online, notably from Russia.

Secure messaging platform Silent Courier aims to strengthen national security by making it easier for the intelligence agency to recruit, the Foreign Office said.

Potential agents in Russia and around the world will be targeted by the UK, it adds.

The announcement is expected to be confirmed in a speech in Istanbul by the outgoing MI6 chief Sir Richard Moore on Friday morning.

Later this month Sir Richard is due to hand over to Blaise Metreweli.

Ahead of Friday's announcement about the new dedicated portal, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said: "National security is the first duty of any government and the bedrock of the prime minister's Plan for Change.

"As the world changes, and the threats we're facing multiply, we must ensure the UK is always one step ahead of our adversaries.

"Our world-class intelligence agencies are at the coalface of this challenge, working behind the scenes to keep British people safe.

"Now we're bolstering their efforts with cutting-edge tech so MI6 can recruit new spies for the UK - in Russia and around the world."

Anyone who wants to securely contact the UK with sensitive information relating to terrorism or hostile intelligence activity will be able to access the portal from Friday.

Instructions on how to use the portal will be publicly available on MI6's verified YouTube channel.

Users are recommended to access it through trustworthy VPNs and devices not linked to themselves.

The launch follows a similar approach by the US's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which published videos on social media channels to target potential Russian spies in 2023.

The CIA previously suffered a disastrous loss of its agents in China after their connections to the Dark Web were breached by Beijing's Ministry of State Security.

Officials said it was one of the worst security breaches of recent years.

Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump have delivered a joint press conference at the end of the US president's second state visit to the UK.

The press conference at the PM's country residence Chequers, lasting just under an hour, saw the leaders field questions on topics ranging from world affairs to domestic politics.

Here are the main points.

1. Trump skirted round Palestine 'disagreement'

The UK's imminent recognition of Palestinian statehood was a potential flashpoint, with Trump having previously said that the move could reward Hamas.

But asked directly about the UK's plans, Trump merely noted that he had a "disagreement" with Starmer on the issue, adding for good measure that it was one of only a "few disagreements" between the pair.

Starmer emphasised that the timing of the UK's decision, which is set to take place in the coming days, had "nothing to do" with Trump's visit, and should be seen in the context of an overall plan for a "plan for peace" in the Middle East.

And he added that Hamas, a designated terror group in the UK, could play "no part" in any future Palestinian state.

Those comments were warmly welcomed by Trump, with the US president reaching across his podium to give Starmer a pat on the back.

2. Using troops to stop illegal migration

Trump was also given a chance to comment on another tricky political issue for Starmer - his efforts to stop illegal arrivals into Britain amid record numbers of small boat crossings in the English Channel this year.

This time however the US president did not mince his words, suggesting Starmer should potentially involve the military, and warning that illegal migration "destroys countries from within".

Trump referred to his approach to securing the US border and said the pair had discussed the issue during their private meeting earlier.

He added: "I think your situation is very similar. You have people coming in, and I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn't matter if you call out the military, it doesn't matter what means you use."

Starmer said the first flight under the migrant returns deal with France taking off earlier, calling it an "important step forward" on the small boats issue.

3. Tough talk on Ukraine

An area where the pair were seemingly united was in condemning Russia over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after Trump said earlier this week said he could impose tougher sanctions on the country if Nato allies meet certain conditions.

Starmer condemned recent Russian missile attacks that saw damage to the British Council building in Kyiv, and said the recent actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin were not those of someone who wants peace.

The US president said Putin had "really let me down", admitting he thought solving the Russia-Ukraine war would be one of the easier conflicts to deal with.

He added, however, that he did not regret holding the peace summit in Alaska with Putin a few months ago, and he felt an "obligation" to help find an end to the war due to the enormous loss of life in the conflict.

4. Free speech flashpoint avoided

Another potential point of tension was the subject of free speech, after Trump's vice-president JD Vance's scalding attack on European democracies, including the UK, over the issue earlier this year.

But asked whether he agreed with Vance and whether the issue remained an important area of disagreement with Starmer, Trump chose not to comment, instead moving to the next question.

Starmer promised the UK would protect free speech "jealously and fiercely," calling it one of the country's "founding values".

But he said free speech had to be balanced against the need for protections, such as protecting children from paedophiles and "those that peddle suicide" online.

5. Peter Mandelson - the elephant in the room?

The state visit has taken place one week after Sir Keir sacked former Labour minister Lord Mandelson as his ambassador to the US over his past friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

That had the potential to be awkward for both the prime minister and the US president, who also had a friendship with the now-deceased Epstein before falling out with him in the early 2000s, prior to the late financier's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Referring to Mandelson as the "elephant in the room", Sky News reporter Beth Rigby asked Trump if he had sympathy with the sacked Labour peer.

Despite having shaken hands with Lord Mandelson in the Oval Office earlier this year, Trump relied: "I don't know him, actually," before suggesting Sir Keir would be better placed to speak on the subject.

The prime minister repeated his previous assertion that he had sacked Lord Mandelson after new information came to light about his association with Epstein.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

England and Wales's chief prosecutor has said no "outside pressure" played a part in his organisation's decision to drop charges against two British men accused of spying for China.

Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions who leads the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said his team had considered "alternative offences" but concluded "none were suitable".

The case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, was dropped on Monday prompting fury from the UK government, opposition parties and Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle.

Cash and Berry had denied the allegations. Beijing called the claims "malicious slander".

The two men were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between 28 December 2021 and 3 February 2023.

But on Monday at the Old Bailey, the court heard that the CPS had determined the evidence it had gathered did not meet the threshold to go to trial. The pair were due to appear at Woolwich Crown Court from 6 October.

Mr Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), said the independence of his team was "completely respected within Whitehall and government" and he could give his "own assurance" that there had been no outside pressure.

Parkinson's comments came in a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp who had asked whether the CPS had been "politically pressured directly or indirectly by any representative of the government".

Parkinson indicated that one factor in securing a conviction would have entailed proving that China was an "enemy" as stated in the Official Secrets Act 1911.

"To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that a person, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, communicated information to another person which is calculated to be, might be, or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an "enemy"," he said.

The law has since been changed with the National Security Act 2023 which Mr Parkinson said contained "more extensive provisions to deal with espionage and those who are acting on behalf of foreign powers".

The CPS decision was criticised by the Home Office and the prime minister's official spokesman who said it was "extremely disappointing" the individuals would not face trial.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle told the Commons: "I am a very unhappy speaker with what has happened. The fact that it has taken two years, until today, for somebody to withdraw this case is not good enough."

Security minister Dan Jarvis said he was "extremely disappointed" that there would be no trial and the government remained "gravely concerned about the threat of Chinese espionage".

Donald Trump has suggested Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could use the military to stop illegal migration, at a news conference during the US president's second state visit to the UK.

The US president said he discussed migration issues with Sir Keir during a meeting at his country residence Chequers.

Trump talked about his policies to secure borders in the US and said the UK faced a similar challenge with migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.

"You have people coming in and I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn't matter if you call out the military, it doesn't matter what means you use," Trump said.

"It destroys countries from within and we're actually now removing a lot of the people that came into our country."

Standing alongside Trump, the prime minister said illegal migration was an issue his government had been taking "incredibly seriously".

Sir Keir said his government had struck several migrant returns deals with other countries, including France, and had been taking action to crack down on people-smuggling gangs.

The prime minister pointed to the first migrant return under the one-in, one-out deal with France.

"That's an important step forward," Sir Keri said. "But there's no silver bullet here."

More than 30,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats so far this year.

It is the earliest point in a calendar year this figure has been passed since data on crossings was first reported in 2018.

The rise in crossings is one of the most prominent issues in British politics and has piled pressure on the prime minister to come up with a solution.

There were no divisions between Trump and Starmer on action to tackle illegal migration, as the leaders projected a sense of unity and affection for each other.

The pair touted the "special relationship" between the UK and the US, and announced a new tech deal Trump said would help the allies "dominate" in the world of artificial intelligence (AI).

But in one flashpoint, Trump said he had "a disagreement with the prime minister" on the subject of Palestinian statehood.

The news conference brought to an end Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK.

In two days of pomp and pageantry, Trump was hosted at Windsor Castle by King Charles and the Royal Family, and attended a state banquet on Wednesday before his political meeting with the prime minister.

Scientists have for the first time located the "mileage clock" inside a brain - by recording the brain activity of running rats.

Letting them loose inside a small, rat-sized arena, the researchers recorded from a part of their brains that is known to be important in navigation and memory.

They found that cells there "fired" in a pattern that looked like a mileage clock - ticking with every few steps the animal travelled.

A further experiment, where human volunteers walked through a scaled up version of this rat navigation test, suggested that the human brain has the same clock.

This study, published in the journal Current Biology, is the first to show that the regular ticking of "grid cells", as they are known, is directly connected to the ability to correctly gauge the distance we've travelled.

Brain fog

"Imagine walking between your kitchen and living room," said lead researcher Prof James Ainge from the University of St Andrews. "[These cells] are in the part of the brain that provides that inner map – the ability to put yourself in the environment in your mind."

This study provides insight into exactly how that internal map in our brains works - and what happens when it goes awry. If you disrupt the ticking of that mileage clock by changing the environment, both rats and humans start getting their distance estimation wrong.

In real life, this happens in darkness, or when fog descends when we're out on a hike. It suddenly becomes much more difficult to estimate how far we have travelled, because our mileage counter stops working reliably.

To investigate this experimentally, researchers trained rats to run a set distance in a rectangular arena - rewarding the animals with a treat - a piece of chocolate cereal - when they ran the correct distance and then returned to the start.

When the animals ran the correct distance, the mileage-counting cells in their brains fired regularly - approximately every 30cm a rat travelled.

"The more regular that firing pattern was, the better the animals were at estimating the distance they had to go to get that treat," explained Prof Ainge.

The researchers were able to record the brain's mileage clock counting the distance the rat had moved.

Crucially, when the scientists altered the shape of the rat arena, that regular firing pattern became erratic and the rats struggled to work out how far they needed to go before they returned to the start for their chocolate treat.

"It's fascinating," said Prof Ainge. "They seem to show this sort of chronic underestimation. There's something about the fact that the signal isn't regular that means they stop too soon."

The scientists likened this to visual landmarks suddenly disappearing in the fog.

"Obviously it's harder to navigate in fog, but maybe what we what people don't appreciate is that it also impairs our ability to estimate distance."

To test this in humans, the researchers scaled up their rat-sized experiment. They built a 12m x 6m arena in the university's student union and asked volunteers to carry out the same task as the rats - walking a set distance, then returning to the start.

Just like rats, human participants were consistently able to estimate the distance correctly when they were in a symmetrical, rectangular box. But when the scientists moved the walls of their purpose-built arena to change its shape, the participants started making mistakes.

Prof Ainge explained: "Rats and humans learn the distance estimation task really well, then, when you change the environment in the way that we know distorts the signal in the rats, you see exactly the same behavioural pattern in humans."

As well as revealing something fundamental about how our brains allow us to navigate, the scientists say the findings could help to diagnose Alzheimer's Disease.

"The specific brain cells we're recording from are in one of the very first areas that's affected in Alzheimer's," explained Prof Ainge.

"People have already created [diagnostic] games that you can play on your phone, for example, to test navigation. We'd be really interested in trying something similar, but specifically looking at distance estimation."

To hear more on this story listen to Victoria Gill on the BBC's Inside Science.

Author Sally Rooney said she did not travel to the UK to collect a book prize this week as she was concerned she may be arrested over her support of British group Palestine Action.

The Irish novelist has been donating money to the group, which was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government in July, after activists broke into an RAF base and damaged two military aircraft earlier this year.

Palestine Action has been targeting arms companies since war broke out in Gaza in 2023.

Rooney, 34, who won a Sky Arts award for novel Intermezzo, said in a statement read out for her at the ceremony: "I'm advised that I can no longer safely enter the UK without potentially facing arrest".

The statement, read by Rooney's publisher Alex Bowler, also said: "I wish that I could be with you this evening to accept the honour in person," adding that she was showing "support for non-violent anti-war protest".

"In that context, I want to thank you all the more warmly for honouring my work tonight, and to reiterate my belief in the dignity and beauty of all human life, and my solidarity with the people of Palestine," it also said.

Rooney said in August she was using the proceeds from her four books and income from the BBC TV adaptations of Normal People and Conversations with Friends to support Palestine Action.

She is not currently working with the BBC on any upcoming projects and has never been a member of staff.

Last week, 890 people were arrested at a demonstration against the ban on Palestine Action in London on Saturday according to the Metropolitan Police.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said last week: Supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing."

She also said she "backed officers" who had arrested those supporting the group.

Beneath gilded portraits and suits of armour in Windsor Castle, 160 guests wined and dined at a lavish banquet to fete US President Donald Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK on Wednesday evening.

Along with the impeccable table settings, three-course meal and custom cocktail, who was there and, just as importantly, who was seated next to who is carefully planned, since the event is as much about diplomacy as it is about fine dining.

This year's guest list was conspicuously missing screen stars or celebrity faces, with not even royal perennials like Sir David Beckham or Sir Elton John attending.

Instead, the list was mostly royals, tech and finance executives, and politicos from both sides of the Atlantic.

From Trump's seat of honour at the centre of the table, next to his host King Charles III, those up and down the table ranged from lesser-known but influential White House players to professional golfers.

Here were some notable guests - and their neighbours at the table.

Business leaders

The table leaned towards power, wealth and influence, including Apple's boss Tim Cook, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, OpenAi's Sam Altman, Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman and - still powerful after all these years, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

The last is a surprising invitee given the fact Trump is suing one of his newspapers for billions over claims he wrote a note framed by a drawing of a naked woman to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Less surprising perhaps is that Murdoch, owner of The Sun and The Times, was sat next to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's chief political spin doctor Morgan McSweeney.

In purely financial terms however, Murdoch's Newscorp is small fry. The others between them run companies worth nearly 10 trillion dollars - four times the value of the entire UK economy.

US business royalty sat down with UK royalty and served up a £150 billon investment into the UK over the coming years.

Over half of that (£90 billion) is coming from private equity giant Blackstone - little wonder that boss Stephen Schwarzman was seated next to Sir Keir.

But what do these benefactors want in return? Abolishing the UK's digital services tax, watering down the online safety act? No and no, insists the government, who says it sees the relationship akin to the one we share on defence and intelligence.

As the Ukraine war has demonstrated, Europe is heavily dependent on the US for those things.

Some have described this as an invasion rather than investment, with former Deputy PM and ex-Meta employee Sir Nick Clegg warning that the UK could become a vassal state creating new dependencies on a handful of US companies.

For a government and country that is in desperate need of investment and growth, you want to be first in line when it's being dished out - and the UK does appear to be at the front of the queue.

Trump entourage

A bulk of the table - nearly two dozen seats - were taken up by Trump's camp, including his wife, daughter, son-in-law, and a slew of senior members of his administration covering everything from foreign policy to AI.

He was of course joined by his wife, Melania Trump, whose nameplate simply read "Mrs Trump". She was seated across from her husband, in between Queen Camilla and the Prince of Wales, William, while Catherine, the Princess of Wales, was next to President Trump.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio scored a prime spot next to the King, with Lady Victoria Starmer, not her husband, on his other side.

Tiffany Trump, fourth child of the president, was the only one of Trump's children to attend the state banquet this time. On the last state visit in 2019, she was one of four children to come. She has been less involved in the Trump administrations than her older siblings, but some like Ivanka Trump have taken a step back in his second term.

Tiffany's husband Michael Boulos also attended. He is no stranger to London, having studied in the city. He does not hold a role in the Trump administration, but the president picked his father Massad Boulos as a key advisor, and the younger Boulos was placed in a prominent seat beside the Princess of Wales.

Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul turned Trump's special envoy who is playing a pivotal role in foreign policy on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, likely found lots to discuss with his neighbour Jonathan Powell, Starmer's National Security Adviser.

Susan Wiles, White House Chief of Staff, was Trump's campaign manager in the 2024 election. He called her the "ice maiden" who operates mostly "in the back", but she is known as one of the most feared political operatives in the US. She was seated next to someone with another important but behind-the-scenes role - private secretary to the King, Sir Clive Alderton.

Another apt pairing was David Sacks, the White House's AI and crypto tsar, next to Demis Hassabis, CEO and co-founder of Google's DeepMind, a British-American AI firm.

Royals

King Charles was seated next to his guest of honour Trump and Rubio, while the King's daughter-in-law the Princess of Wales was on Trump's opposite side.

Queen Camilla was across the table, next to the First Lady, but more interestingly, also flanked by the US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.

Sitting next to the First Lady, the Prince of Wales could discuss more local matters with his other neighbour, Paula Reynolds, chairwoman of National Grid.

The Princess Royal, Anne, who is known for her love of horses, was sitting next to racehorse trainer John Gosden.

On her other side was the US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who hosted Trump and the First Lady at his residence in Regents Park the first night they arrived in the UK, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves at his opposite elbow.

Other senior royals were seated next to White House powerbrokers.

Princess Anne's husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence sat next to Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller.

Beside the Duke of Gloucester, the late Queen Elizabeth II's cousin, was Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff.

The Duchess of Gloucester was seated next to James Blair, deputy chief of staff for legislative, political and public affairs.

Queen Camilla has taken First Lady Melania Trump on a tour of Windsor Castle's royal library and to see the Queen Mary's Dolls' House during the final morning of Donald Trump's state visit.

The two accompanied one another as they walked through bookcases filled with leather-bound volumes, before inspecting some of the miniatures made especially for the world's largest dollhouse.

At the same time, the US president travelled to Chequers, the prime minister's grace-and-favour residence in Buckinghamshire, for diplomatic talks.

Mrs Trump later joined the Princess of Wales to host a group of scouts in the gardens of Frogmore House, offering them sandwiches made with honey from her Norfolk residence.

The 20 Squirrel Scouts had been taking part in nature activities on the Windsor Castle estate to earn their Go Wild badges.

They were joined by Chief Scout Dwayne Fields, who said of Catherine, the association's president: "It's a great thing to have her shine a light on the movement."

During their perusal of Windsor Castle's attractions, the Queen and the first lady shared a smile and a chuckle as they inspected some of the tiny books, including The Gruffalo by Julia Donaldson and A Recipe Fit for a Queen by the Queen's son, Tom Parker Bowles.

Many of the books - such as Dame Jacqueline Wilson's The House Mouse and Music for a Dolls' House - were made for the 100th anniversary of Queen Mary's Dolls' House.

The Queen, an avid advocate of children's literature, also showed some of Windsor's full-size books and historical prints.

While the two toured the royal library, schoolchildren created their own minitature books with colouring pencils.

• Follow updates on Trump's UK state visit
• What is the president's schedule for day two?
• In pictures: Trump and Melania meet royals at Windsor
• Who was on guest list at state banquet?
• Watch: Pomp and protests on first day of Trump's visit

Designed by British architect Sir Edwin Lutyens in the 1920s, the Queen Mary Doll's House is perhaps the most famous of its kind in the world, boasting a fully stocked wine cellar, working lifts, electricity and even running water.

The scale replica of an Edwardian residence was built for King George V's consort as a gift from the nation after World War One.

At the time, it took more than 1,500 leading artists and craftspeople, including Faberge and Cartier, who worked for three years to complete the project.

Other miniature marvels inside the structure include a tiny grand piano, the Crown Jewels and a 1920s-era vacuum cleaner.

Since 1925, it has sat in Windsor Castle, in a room Sir Edwin also designed, attracting around half a million visitors each year.

After spending time with the Princess of Wales, the first lady will join her husband at Chequers, from where they will both return to Air Force One for their departure back to the US.

The events cap off a two-day state visit that has included expansive displays of pageantry and a lavish banquet in which King Charles and Trump both remarked on the close relationship between the UK and US.

The US president's unprecedented second state visit was accompanied by the announcement of US technology firm investments in the UK potentially worth up to £150bn.

Trump's visit to Chequers will conclude with a news conference, in which topics - including state recognition for Palestine and the sacking of the UK's ambassador to the US over his relationship with the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein - are likely to be raised.

A record-breaking £150bn package of US investment into the UK has been announced during US President Donald Trump's State Visit.

The UK government is calling this the largest commercial deal of its kind and expects it to create more than 7600 "high-quality jobs" across the country.

A large majority of the money will come from Blackstone, the world's largest alternative asset manager, which has unveiled plans for a £90bn investment in the UK over the next decade.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the investments "are a testament to Britain's economic strength and a bold signal that our country is open, ambitious, and ready to lead".

"Jobs, growth and opportunity is what I promised for working people, and it's exactly what this State Visit is delivering," he added.

On Thursday, major UK and US investors will meet the Prime Minister and President Trump at Chequers to discuss how both countries can go further to deepen their economic ties and future collaborations.

Blackstone previously announced in June that it would invest £370bn in Europe over the next decade.

Earlier this week, Microsoft pledged to spend £22bn in the UK over the next four years, and Google pledged £5bn over the next two years to expand an existing data centre in Hertfordshire.

These investments will also help act as a powerful counterweight to the exodus of investment seen in the pharmaceutical sector.

However, the investments announced by Google and Microsoft are less than 4% of their annual spend, and the 7,600 jobs it is hoped to be created is a small number compared to the 160,000 payroll jobs lost since last year.

Where is the investment going?

Blackstone's large investment is in addition to the £10bn it previously announced for data centre development in the UK.

Real estate investment trust Prologis is also set to invest £3.9bn into the UK's life sciences and advanced manufacturing.

Palantir will invest up to £1.5bn in UK defence innovation and plans to create up to 350 new jobs.

American tech company Amentum plans to create more than 3,000 jobs and expand its UK workforce by over 50%.

Boeing has said it will convert two 737 aircraft in Birmingham for the US Air Force, which would be the first USAF aircraft built in the UK for over 50 years, and could create 150 high-skilled jobs.

US Engineering firm, STAX, has also committed up to £38m to expand its UK operations.

The 7,600 total jobs promised are intended to be in all areas of the UK.

This is set to include 1,000 new jobs in Belfast and 6,000 more roles from Glasgow to Warrington, the Midlands and the North-East.

Business and trade secretary Peter Kyle said the deal reflects growing confidence in the UK's industrial strategy.

"These record-breaking investments will create thousands of high-quality jobs across the UK," he said.

"It's a clear sign that our Plan for Growth is delivering for working people."

The government said it wants to give "real opportunities for working people", including apprenticeships in clean energy and careers in biotech and AI.

This comes ahead of the signing of the Tech Prosperity Deal on Thursday, which is a major new deal to accelerate the building of new nuclear power in both the US and the UK.

It has been a brutal week in America and I'm not the only one wondering whether the country can pull itself out of this spiral of hatred and violence.

After one of the most searing assassinations in US history, the governor of Utah pleaded for Americans to turn down the political temperature.

But hardly anyone that I've spoken to since Charlie Kirk's death thinks that will be the path the country will choose. Not anytime soon, at least.

Recent history is full of examples where America has chosen not to come together after a tragedy. It didn't happen 14 years ago after a Democratic congresswoman was shot in the head in Arizona. Nor eight years ago, when a Republican congressman was shot during baseball practice.

Americans didn't even come together in the face of a global pandemic. In fact, Covid made divisions worse.

The reason is simple, yet hard to change. The incentives that fuel American political life reward the people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.

Around the country, you're more likely to get elected to political office if you run on policies and rhetoric that appeal to your political base, rather than the political middle (it's the depressing byproduct of gerrymandering - the original sin behind America's dysfunctional, divided politics).

Equally, in the media, people who opine about politics are rewarded for being more extreme and stoking outrage — that's the way to get more eyeballs and, ultimately, more advertising dollars.

This incentive structure is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.

After Charlie Kirk was killed, he urged Americans to "log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in the community".

He sounded so sane, so wholesome - an effort, in a sea of division, at reconciliation.

The 1960s and 70s versus today

Division and political violence are not new phenomena in America. Some 160 years ago, the country went to war with itself and it has never really stopped.

Over a period of five years in the 1960s, a US president was killed and then his brother was killed while campaigning to become president. In that same period, two of the nation's most prominent civil rights leaders were assassinated too.

In the 1970s, President Gerald Ford was shot at on two separate occasions. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was struck by a bullet while walking to his limousine.

And of course, just last year Trump was the victim of a failed attempt on his life by a gunman in Pennsylvania — and a second alleged attempt by a gunman in Florida, whose trial began the week Kirk was killed.

What makes this era so different from the 1960s and 70s, though, is what Governor Cox is worried about.

While he has carefully steered away from saying things that would further divide Americans, he hasn't been so gentle with the social media companies that he clearly blames for this tragedy.

"I believe that social media has played a direct role in every single assassination and assassination attempt that we have seen over the last five, six years," Cox said in an interview on Sunday.

He went on to say that "cancer" was likely too weak a word for what it has done to American society.

Most tech companies have stayed quiet in their official capacities. However, Elon Musk, billionaire boss of X, has weighed in, claiming that the "radical left celebrated the cold-blooded murder of Charlie Kirk," and adding, "unity is impossible with evil fanatics who celebrate murder".

He has also posted about the impact of social media, arguing: "While at times the discussion on X can become negative, it's still good that there is a discussion happening."

'This is like a bad marriage'

The pitfalls of this system that blends social media with politics concerns even those who are the most passionate about politics, regardless of who they support.

Earlier this week, Kaitlin Griffiths, a 19-year-old who is the president of Utah State University's chapter of Charlie Kirk's organisation, Turning Point USA, put it plainly: "Social media is definitely a really difficult thing for our society.

"You can't even hold a conversation with somebody who doesn't agree with your political beliefs — and I just think that's honestly tragic."

Tragic and ironic, since Kirk saw himself as a champion of free speech, even as his critics often disagreed with that framing. His death though may push the country further from civil discourse.

Within days of Kirk's death, the country's political camps had already retreated to opposing narratives.

Many on the left are eager to explore the ways that Kirk's killer might have been radicalised by internet subcultures and group chats. Many on the right prefer to unpack whether the suspect was part of a left-wing conspiracy.

Neither group seems particularly keen to prioritise reconciliation or healing.

The reality is that those who study extremism believe that left-right may not even be the most helpful way to look at the division of this current moment.

"It's better to look at what's causing people to be ungovernable," says Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who specialises in polarised democracies.

"It does take a desire to turn down the temperature… [and] requires people to have a little more courage than they're showing.

"I think it is more useful to focus on how we as a society turn a page and open a new chapter, because this is like a bad marriage. And like a bad marriage, you can only lose by pointing fingers."

What reconciliation would take

As for the question of whether America can break the hold of the algorithms that stoke the divisions, that would take a leader of enormous strength with an equally enormous commitment to reconciliation.

"I'm not sure how we pull out of this," the politics writer David Drucker told me. "It would help if both parties - and by parties I mean 'parties' not just political figures - agree to stop the recriminations and just say 'stop'."

"Usually only a president can facilitate that. Absent both sides agreeing there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, or absent the next president doing so, I'm not sure how we get there."

Trump is not that type of president. He often seems at his strongest, politically, when he has an adversary to fight against.

My understanding is that Trump does believe that people on the left want to destroy his Maga movement. And since Kirk's death, he has taken a very different tone from the governor of Utah.

"I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less," he said, when asked how the nation can be fixed. "The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime... The radicals on the left are the problem."

And he went further in his Oval Office remarks following Kirk's killing: "Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives."

The framing by the president - that this was not just the deed of a twisted individual but of the radical left more broadly - is being echoed by other White House officials.

"With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have... to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks," said Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff.

"It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name."

However, a number of studies into politically-motivated killings and violence in the US - over several decades - suggest that more cases were carried out by people with "right-wing" ideologies than with "left-wing" ones, though more data is likely necessary to draw a firm conclusion.

'People say history repeats itself - it never has'

Some people I've spoken to point to bleak times in US history as a source of comfort.

"Few periods in America have been more politically bleak or violent than the years [in the 1960s and early 1970s] shaped by Vietnam and Watergate," former Republican congressman, turned influential TV host, Joe Scarborough told me.

"But the country moved forward, celebrated its bicentennial, and moved beyond its violent divides. It will do so again."

Also among the optimists I spoke to was Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, one of the country's most senior black officials. He condemned political violence as the most "anti-democratic" act, but also reminded me of the progress America has made on issues like race.

"The story of any family is always more complicated than the stories we tell ourselves at the family reunion," he told me.

"My father had to give up his seat [on a bus] while wearing his soldier's uniform to a teenager, but I now sit in a Senate seat."

Their hope is heartening - but I still don't see a clear path out.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about a conversation I had earlier this year with historian and filmmaker Ken Burns, as America prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of its founding.

"People say history repeats itself," Burns told me. "It never has."

Burns instead prefers a quote that many have attributed to the writer Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." In other words, even if the present looks like the past — things never happen the same way twice.

This moment of tension feels like it rhymes with so many other periods of discord in American history, but it isn't quite repeating them.

Yes, American history is full of anger and conflict — but I'm not sure this country's social and political systems were always so quick to reward the companies and people who stoke those emotions.

Meanwhile the United States will get weaker, not greater.

Former Defence Secretary Bob Gates once told me that the three greatest threats to America's national security were a rising China, a declining Russia and the country's own internal divisions.

America's adversaries certainly know how much its divisions damage this superpower. They work hard online to drive people further apart. And Americans make it easy for them.

Top picture credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images and Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

The number of planning approvals for new homes in England is unacceptable, the new housing secretary has said, after official data showed permission for building homes fell to a record low during Labour's first year in office.

Fewer than 29,000 projects were granted permission by councils in the year ending June 2025 - striking a blow to the government's promise to deliver 1.5 million homes by the next election.

Steve Reed, who has taken over from Angela Rayner as housing secretary, said fixing the planning system "won't happen overnight".

Conservative shadow housing secretary Sir James Cleverly said that Labour had "promised to 'build, build, build' but their flagship planning reforms clearly aren't working".

You can see the figures for your local area in BBC Verify's housing tracker.

About 7,000 applications for housing were granted permission between April and June 2025 - the lowest three-month figure since records began in 1979 and an 8% fall on the same three months of 2024.

An application can be either "minor" for fewer than 10 homes or "major" for 10 or more.

The data shows that both the number of approvals and the overall number of decisions taken by councils have fallen.

But councils are approving a larger proportion of the ones they handle. Around three-quarters of applications decided were approved in the year to June 2025, up from 71% the year before.

Separate data from housing contractor Glenigan suggests 221,000 individual homes were granted permission in the year to June, down from 237,000 the year to June 2024.

Labour promised in its election manifesto to deliver 1.5 million homes in England by the next general election. To get to that, there would need to be an average of about 300,000 new homes per year.

Mr Reed said: "These figures are unacceptable. I will leave no stone unturned to build 1.5 million homes, so families have the key to home ownership in their hands."

His plans include an overhaul of the Building Safety Regulator's performance and working with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to unlock house building in the capital.

This is on top of reforms already announced, such as housing targets for local councils that were set last December. The government has also pledged a £39 billion investment over 10 years to build hundreds of thousands of new social and affordable homes.

Government figures used in BBC Verify's housing tracker suggest the number of new homes receiving their first energy performance certificate (EPC) fell during Labour's first year in office, with ministers blaming the slowdown on the previous Conservative government. EPCs are a leading indicator of new homes in between the releases of annual statistics.

Government data is not available on applications received for housing but Planning Portal, which people use to apply to their local council for permission, reported a big rise in the number of new homes requested.

Geoff Keal from Planning Portal said that while applications through their service had gone up, getting to the decision stage can take several months.

"Backlogs mean approvals for this wave of applications may not appear until later in the year," he said.

Housing market analyst Neal Hudson, of BuiltPlace, said: "Labour hit the ground running with their housing policies last year but the issue is they were trying to fix the wrong problem.

"Housebuilders and developers will not plan for and build homes if there's no one to buy them. Unfortunately that's the case given current house price levels and mortgage rates, while the government's affordable homes programme is underwhelming given the aspirations for 1.5 million."

The situation in Gaza City is "nothing short of cataclysmic", a UN official has told the BBC, as Israeli tanks and troops continue to advance on the third day of a ground offensive.

Olga Cherevko, a spokeswoman for the UN's humanitarian office, said she had seen a constant stream of Palestinians heading south during a recent visit to the city, but that hundreds of thousands remained.

The World Health Organization (WHO) warned that overwhelmed hospitals were on the brink of collapse because it was being prevented from delivering lifesaving supplies.

The Israeli military said its forces were "dismantling terror infrastructure and eliminating terrorists" in Gaza City.

It has said its objectives are to free the hostages still held by Hamas and defeat up to 3,000 fighters in what it has described as the group's "main stronghold".

However, the offensive on Gaza's biggest urban area, where one million people were living and a famine was confirmed last month, has drawn widespread international condemnation.

The UN and its humanitarian partners have recorded at least 200,000 people crossing from northern to southern Gaza since mid-August, when Israel announced its intention to conquer Gaza City. Around 55,000 have made the journey since Sunday.

Cherevko, who works for the UN humanitarian office in the central city of Deir al-Balah, told the BBC she travelled to Gaza City two days ago - a 29km (18 mile) round-trip that took 14 hours.

"The things there, and the scenes on the way to Gaza City, are nothing short of cataclysmic," she recalled.

"A constant stream of people [are] crossing from the north to the south, many on foot. Inside Gaza City, it's very crowded still because there are hundreds of thousands of civilians still remaining there."

She said she also witnessed multiple Israeli strikes "very close" to the UN convoy while in Gaza City, adding: "It was really just a constant hit after hit while we were there."

On Thursday morning, witnesses told Reuters news agency they had seen Israeli tanks in the northern Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhood of Tal al-Hawa, which have come under heavy bombardment in recent days.

They also reported that Israeli forces had blown up remotely driven vehicles laden with explosives in both areas, destroying many houses.

Local hospitals said at least 14 people had been killed by Israeli fire across the Gaza Strip on Thursday, including nine in Gaza City.

The Israeli military said in a statement that its troops were "expanding" their operations in the city, without giving any details about their movements.

At the start of the ground assault on Tuesday, the military's chief of staff, Lt Gen Eyal Zamir, told troops to "intensify the blows against Hamas and to decisively defeat the Gaza City brigade, in order to carry out the most moral and important duty - the return of all the hostages home and the dismantling of Hamas's military and governing capabilities".

Cherevko warned that many people were unable to comply with the Israeli military's order to evacuate to its designated "humanitarian area" in the south.

"The expense of moving your belongings, if you are lucky enough to find a vehicle that will move them, is exorbitant. It's not affordable for many people. And that's why many are doing this on foot, with barely a mattress in their hands and maybe a plastic bag."

And once they arrived there were no guarantees of shelter or safety, she added.

"I spoke to a lot of people who have recently arrived in Deir al-Balah and [the southern city of] Khan Younis. Many of them are sitting on the side of the street, with nothing. They don't have any shelter. They don't know where to go.

"Yesterday, I met a family who had been walking around for four days, trying to find space to sleep and they didn't manage," she said.

The WHO's chief, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the Israeli offensive was "forcing traumatised families into an ever-shrinking area unfit for human dignity".

"The injured and people with disabilities cannot move to safety, which puts their lives in grave danger," he wrote on X.

"Hospitals, already overwhelmed, are on the brink of collapse as escalating violence blocks access and prevents [the] WHO from delivering lifesaving supplies."

The UN says there are currently about 1,790 in-patient hospital beds for the 2.1 million population of Gaza, resulting in occupancy rates of 180 to 300% across the 17 hospitals that remain partially functional across the territory.

Ten of those hospitals are in Gaza City and one is elsewhere in northern Gaza.

On Tuesday, al-Rantisi children's hospital in Gaza City - the only specialised paediatric hospital left in the territory - was hit by three Israeli strikes, causing damage to rooftop water tanks, electrical and communication systems and some medical equipment, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry.

Forty patients fled for safety following the attack, while 40 others, including four children in the intensive care and eight newborn babies, remain inside.

The Israeli military has not yet commented.

The UN Population Fund meanwhile warned that women were being forced to give birth in the streets, without hospitals, doctors or clean water.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 65,141 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since then, according to the territory's health ministry.

The ministry says another 435 people have so far died during the war as a result of malnutrition and starvation, including four over the past 24 hours.