At least 19 people have died in Jamaica as a result of Hurricane Melissa, Information Minister Dana Morris Dixon has said, as search and rescue efforts continue and authorities try to get aid to hard-hit areas.

The hurricane, one of the most powerful to strike the Caribbean, has also killed at least 30 people in Haiti, officials said.

In Jamaica, "there are entire communities that seem to be marooned and areas that seem to be flattened," Dixon said, adding there are "devastating" scenes in western regions.

Electricity remains out to most of the island and as people try to salvage damaged homes and belongings from floodwaters and mud, many thousands are growing increasingly desperate for aid.

There are parts of the country that have been without water for several days and food is growing increasingly scarce.

Aid supplies are starting to arrive more rapidly with the main airport in the Jamaican capital, Kingston, largely back to normal.

But smaller regional airports, some of which are located near to where humanitarian assistance is most needed, remain only partly operational.

As such, aid agencies and the military are bringing in the urgently needed supplies from Kingston via road, many of which remain unpassable in places.

Satellite imagery shows nearly all buildings in some Jamaican villages have been destroyed by the hurricane.

Residents of towns in western Jamaica told the BBC on Thursday that "words can't explain how devastating" the storm has been on the country.

"No one is able to get through to their loved ones," Trevor 'Zyanigh' Whyte told the BBC from the town of White House in Westmoreland parish.

"Everyone is just, you know, completely disconnected... Every tree is on the road, right, so you can't get too far with the cars, not even a bicycle," he said.

In Haiti, many of the victims in the storm died when a river overflowed in Petit-Goave. A full assessment is ongoing, as there are still areas that authorities have not been able to access.

Around 15,000 people were staying in more than 120 shelters in Haiti, interim UN co-ordinator for the country Gregoire Goodstein said.

In Cuba, more than 3 million people were "exposed to life-threatening conditions" during the hurricane, with 735,000 people "safely evacuated", according to the UN's resident co-ordinator for Cuba Francisco Pichon.

No fatalities have been reported so far in Cuba, but almost 240 communities have been cut off due to flooding and landslides, Cuban authorities said.

Hurricane Melissa made landfall on Tuesday in Jamaica as a category five storm, packing winds of up to 185 mph (295 km/h), before impacting other countries in the Caribbean.

Governments, humanitarian organisations and individuals around the world are pledging support for the nations hardest hit by the storm.

The World Food Programme said it is collaborating with partners to coordinate logistics, cash and emergency supplies across Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

The US State Department said it is deploying a disaster response team to the region to help with search and rescue operations, and assisting in efforts to provide food, water, medical supplies, hygiene kits and temporary shelters.

The UK government said it is sending £2.5m ($3.36m) in emergency humanitarian funding to support recovery in the Caribbean.

While Jamaica, Cuba and Haiti assessed the damage left in Melissa's wake, Bermuda braced for impact.

The Bermuda Weather Service expected Melissa to be a category two hurricane when it passed the British overseas territory on Thursday night.

Government offices in Bermuda will close until Friday afternoon and all schools will shut on Friday.

"Until the official 'All Clear' is issued, residents are urged to stay off the roads so Government work crews can safely assess and clear debris," a public alert from the government said.

Spoiler warning: This article reveals details from the eighth episode of The Celebrity Traitors

Parting may have been sweet sorrow for young lovers Romeo and Juliet, but when Shakespeare's famous line is uttered by traitor Alan Carr, it's more like murderous Macbeth.

He has struck in plain sight - again - killing off Claudia's "Queen of the Castle", Celia Imrie, by quoting the bard while pouring her a goblet of wine at a lavish dinner for the remaining contestants.

"Oh honestly, just because I was brave enough to get the one traitor out," Imrie said when she learned her fate, referencing the faithfuls FINALLY getting rid of traitor Jonathan Ross.

Imrie's demise was indeed a sombre moment for all concerned.

"I love being here, it's been gorgeous and I'm devastated. I so wanted to stay to the end, but it's a game," she said sadly.

After learning it was Imrie's last supper, the burly Joe Marler became emotional, saying: "My darling Celia is gone. My heart is broken. I'm sick of this - they are taking out some lovely, lovely people.

"I'm not having it any more."

But as Ed Gamble pointed out in BBC Two's Celebrity Traitors Uncloaked, Imrie's demise was ripe for humour as well.

Her accidental fart in episode three was the gift that kept giving.

"Farting is such sweet sorrow," he said to her, in a line worthy of William Shakespeare himself, who also enjoyed contrasting dark, dramatic moments with bursts of humour.

Carr clearly got more of a taste for murder as the show progressed, bumping off Paloma Faith in plain sight and handing Lucy Beaumont her death warrant.

But this time round, his conscience re-emerged, and he found it "heartbreaking".

"I'm really hoping third time's a charm," he said, trying to convince himself he still had it in him to keep going.

Host Claudia Winkleman was rattled by losing Imrie, declaring: "I love her", as she stalked out of the breakfast room clutching Imrie's portrait.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carr later looked a bit edgy about the upcoming round table, telling Cat Burns his Shakepearean moment was "so obvious".

"I'm so nervous, what do we do if everyone goes for me today," he said.

"I just hope no one puts two and two together with the the eggy Shakespeare quote."

Later on, the contestants had to put their doubts and suspicions aside for the day's challenge - in a creepy room full of headless dummies, which needed their Celebrity Traitor heads to be reattached.

Easy enough - except our celebrities had to navigate through a fiendish array of red laser beams, all pointing at awkward angles, meaning the most nimble had the easiest time of it.

Nick Mohammed turned out to be something of a twinkle toes, making it through with relative ease.

But poor Marler had a trickier time of it, saying: "I'm not one of the nimble, agile rugby players" and calling himself a bit of an "oil rig".

Carr, noting that Claire Balding's head "looked like Boris Johnson", decided to carry Imrie across first, saying: "I took Celia's head because I missed her - even though I murdered her, but I had pangs of guilt!"

He later took his own, admitting: "I grabbed my own head, I'm a narcissist… well someone's got to love it!"

After a nail-biting finish, the celebs managed to complete the task, earning Claudia's praise, including a surprising accolade.

"Thank you, you were amazing. That was better than my wedding day," she said.

After all the camaraderie of the challenge, it was then even harder for the contestants to face the round table, where with just six of them left, everyone felt exposed.

Burns was hoping she hadn't "given them enough to cling on to", while Kate Garraway was uncharacteristically bullish.

"I'm going to fight to the death," she said.

There was plenty of fighting talk from Marler too, who looked like he was going to name and shame Carr and vote for him.

But he ended up voting for Garraway, calling her a "dipsy damsel", and she was voted off - yet another faithful biting the dust.

She gave a touching speech as she departed, referencing the death of her husband, political lobbyist and therapist Derek Draper. Draper died last year after living with extreme complications after getting Covid during the pandemic.

"I've had a lot of years of being very serious and very sad, and you've all allowed me to play the most amazing game," she said.

"But also you've allowed me to play and be silly and have fun. Every single one of you.

"I'm going to take away a new idea at the start of a new kind of life really, so thank you very much for that."

David Olusoga also got a couple of votes, including one from Carr, who managed to mostly lie low during the discussion, along with Burns.

Or so they thought.

Marler is onto them, convinced they're both traitors, and is now rallying Mohammed and Olusoga to back him as they go into the final.

"I'm hoping to get really close to Alan and Cat so they keep me in the game, and then I can try and pull the rug from under their feet last minute," he said.

"Sorry traitors, I'm coming for you."

There was a telling moment right near the end of the show, when each remaining contestant had to look the others in the eye and tell them they were a faithful.

The others kept straight faces, but Carr couldn't manage it without dissolving into a fit of giggles. One X user called it "the TV moment of the year".

"I am a faithful, I just get nervous," Carr told everyone.

"Yeah, I'm not having it," said Marler.

If Marler puts his full force behind his convictions, he could prove to be unstoppable.

Ever since I was a child I have loved wildflowers. I have fond memories of the woods in Sussex, where I grew up, filling with primroses early in the year and carpeted with bluebells in the spring.

I always used their nicknames - "eggs and bacon" for birds-foot-trefoil (a native plant known for its yellow slipper-like petals) and "bread-and-cheese" for the young shoots of the British tree hawthorn, which my friends and I would eat. And pretend to like!

We picked rosehips from hedges too, which we split open to make itching powder, perfect for playground pranks.

But later in life, on my walks through the countryside, I began to notice dwindling numbers of wildflowers. I missed the grasslands, bursting with colour, that I'd so enjoyed in my childhood.

According to the charity Plantlife, approximately 97% of wildflower meadows have been lost across the UK since the 1930s, while species-rich grassland areas, which used to be a common sight, are now among the most threatened habitats.

"It's definitely a story of severe overall decline, both in the cover of flowers but also the diversity," explains Simon Potts, professor of biodiversity and ecosystem services at Reading University.

So, what will happen if there isn't more intervention to save wildflowers? What will the future look like?

"Awful, in a word," says Prof Potts. "If we, let's say, take a scenario where we just continue business as usual as we are now, we will still keep losing our wildflowers.

"And with that, we lose the beneficial biodiversity like the pollinators and the natural enemies of pests."

As a bee lover I am on team pollinator - which is one of the reasons why my husband and I decided to plant our own wildflower meadow. Not just for the beautiful colours but for the vibrancy of the bees, butterflies and moths flying around, which need that habitat.

Yet since then, I've come to understand that the loss of wildflowers could bring - and the other perhaps more unexpected consequences too.

Higher food prices, less wildlife

"The consequence will be for farmers," argues Prof Potts. "They will get low yields and poor quality crops, consumers will have to pay higher prices. Our environment will be degraded, eroded, will have less wildlife.

"Many of them [wildflowers] produce nectar and pollen, which is super important for things like wild bees, hoverflies, and butterflies, that can pollinate crops."

Prof Daniel Gibbs, food security lead at the University of Birmingham's School of Biosciences, also has concerns about the long-term consequences.

"Over time, and alongside pressures from climate change and land degradation, this could make our food system more fragile, and negatively impact food security," he says - meaning we could, for example, find ourselves with more limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

There are also studies showing that fields near wildflower-rich margins or meadows produce better-quality fruit and higher yields.

"Wildflowers can also support some bugs, like spiders and carabid beetles… [which] do an absolutely fantastic job in controlling some of the pests that we get on crops - that can either damage the crop or sometimes lower the quality of the produce," adds Prof Potts.

He describes wildflowers as almost like little factories, pumping out beneficial bits of biodiversity that can help with food production.

"Farmers may have to rely more on manual pollination," Prof Gibbs says. "Or we may need to look to increasing food imports, both of which can drive up prices."

Farming under strain

Multiple factors are behind the decline. Sarah Shuttleworth, a botanist with Plantlife, argues that certain intensive farming methods have contributed.

But some intensive farming methods have also allowed farmers to grow food for the country - and farmers I spoke to pointed out that they face tough financial choices.

Though there have been government subsidies in place for years, meaning farmers are paid by the government to support wildlife on their land, since Brexit the way these grants are paid has changed, with different schemes designed in each of the devolved nations.

In England, there has been frustration in some quarters about the speed and rollout of the grants and the fact that some schemes have been paused - such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), though this is due to reopen, while others extended at the last minute, leaving farmers less able to plan ahead.

Speaking about the SFI scheme, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spokesperson told the BBC: "We inherited farming schemes which were untargeted and underspent, meaning millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.

"We have changed direction to ensure public money is spent effectively, and last year all the government's farming budget was spent."

They also acknowledged that wildflowers are vital, providing food and habitats for pollinators and wildlife, as well as improving biodiversity, and added: "We are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history and under our agri-environment schemes we are funding millions of hectares of wildflower meadows."

As part of its new deal for farmers, Defra said it has committed nearly £250m in farming grants to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector.

Mark Meadows, Warwickshire chair of the National Farmers' Union (NFU), maintains 6m (20ft) wildflower strips around many of his fields. He feared that without an extension to his current agreement with Defra he'd have to return some wildflower margins to crop production.

"I'd love [to] be profitable enough [to] say 'Look, we'll leave 5% of our farmland,'… but agricultural costs have gone up a lot," he says.

Other farmers share similar tales. David Lord is a third-generation farmer in Essex and member of the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

"I'm 47 and I've never known farming to be under so much strain," he says.

Knowing what funding for nature recovery on farms will be in place in future years is, he says, crucial. "It takes time and care and cost to maintain [wildflowers]... A lot of farmers aren't going to be minded to just keep these habitats in place without the funding."

Why we created a meadow

There are some glimmers of hope.

Prof Potts says there has at least been a slowdown in decline over the last couple of decades - and perhaps a limited recovery for some species.

"I think [this] reflects some of the agricultural practices that have been a bit more nature-friendly."

Nature writer, and author of Flora Britannica, Richard Mabey, agrees that the decline in wildflowers is far from universal.

Certain species such as cow parsley, yarrow and knapweed are in fact spreading, and he welcomes an influx of non-native plants and "garden escapes", such as snowdrop and buddleia.

Even so, Prof Potts says: "It is the most precious things that we're losing the most of." This includes cornflowers, corncockle and corn marigold - what he terms the iconic British countryside flowers.

And the overall decline is why my husband and I decided to create our own wildflower meadow from an overgrown arable field.

There was a field next to our house, which I had put beehives in, with permission from the owner. I had often thought it would be wonderful to create a wildflower meadow around those hives, so when the opportunity arose to buy the field, we decided to go ahead.

A conservation specialist advised us on where to buy the seed. It was particularly important to get some yellow rattle seed, which helps keep more dominant grasses in check. This in turn gives other wildflowers more opportunity to gain a foothold.

Our first year after sowing was amazing. A patriotic bloom of red, white and blue burst across the field. The red was from poppies which came from the disturbed ground. The white was ox-eye daisies, bladder campion and wild carrot, with spires of bright blue from viper's bugloss.

The colour has changed over time - the splash of red did not return, but different wildflowers arrived in their place.

The most spectacular year was last summer. Orchid seeds I'd scattered many years before and almost forgotten about, managed to flower. We counted more than 100 bee orchids — which to a bee lover like me, was the climax of years of work.

In fairness, I should admit it's years of my husband Chris's work. He found an old-fashioned seed fiddle for us to use — a hand-held device used to scatter the seeds in a controlled way, operated as though drawing a bow across a violin.

He also cut the hay at the end of summer, initially trying with a scythe - Poldark-style - but ultimately finding a small tractor does the trick in a less backbreaking way.

Of course, many people are not in the fortunate position we found ourselves in, of being able to create a wildflower meadow. And in the UK, you cannot plant wildflowers just anywhere — you would most likely need the landowner's permission.

But growing numbers of people are trying to create their own patches of wildflowers. Plantlife reports that more and more are joining its No Mow May initiative — an annual campaign to let wildflowers grow freely, by packing away the lawnmower.

Sarah Shuttleworth says just a small spot can make a difference, especially when it comes to pollinators. "Anyone who has a patch of grass could do their bit… the idea is that you're recreating a meadow-type management scheme, but in a very, very micro scale."

Time for a radical rethink?

The charity would like to see wildflower habitats being given the same kind of protection as other precious landscapes. Meanwhile Prof Potts thinks, "We need a bit more of a radical think about how to support farmers to do the right thing."

New housing developments could also prove a way to create wildflower meadows. Under the government's Biodiversity Net Gain scheme, set up under the Environment Act, developers creating building sites are obliged to ensure the same amount of biodiversity at the end of the project, as they had at the start, plus 10%.

Ben Taylor manages the Iford Estate, farming land near Lewes in Sussex. For a recording of Open Country on Radio 4, he showed me with great pride around a new wildflower meadow, which was part of a 90-acre site, funded as a pilot by the scheme.

"We have seen hares here now, which we never had a year or two ago, before we started doing this. So it's really exciting..."

But, I wondered, does it make sense to take all of those acres of land out of food production?

Mr Taylor says the soil was poor there anyway. "You have to have nature to be able to grow food," he adds. "Because you need the pollinators as you need the ecosystem, the food chains, the soil webs and everything else to be able to grow food sustainably in the long-term - so I like to think of it as a reservoir of biodiversity."

Many ecologists also want us to look beyond the benefits the wildflowers provide for us.

"Those species are just valuable in their own right, regardless of what they do or what they provide… They've also got their own right to be," argues Dr Kelly Hemmings, associate professor in ecology at the Royal Agricultural University.

Richard Mabey stresses a similar point. "They are important, in my view, for ethical reasons, simply because they exist.

"Beyond that they are the infrastructure of all other life on the Earth, the fundamental base of the food chain."

Top picture credit: 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. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published - click here to find out how.

We've all looked at our bank account and wondered why we don't have as much money as we thought we did, and suddenly, the bills, shopping and socialising begin to add up.

For many of us, our relationship with money is strained and dealing with financial matters leaves us feeling overwhelmed or stressed.

If you're struggling to get on top of your finances, here are four ways to help you manage your money better.

1. Look at when you spend money

Sitting down and thinking about what actually drives you to spend money can help you stop destructive patterns, says journalist and author Anniki Sommerville.

When she previously worked in a very stressful corporate role, she bought new clothes everytime she achieved something difficult or challenging.

"I felt like I deserved to reward myself.

"I had this pattern of spending, which was like 'you've done a really good presentation, now you deserve to buy yourself something.'"

Abigail Foster, a chartered accountant and author, says the easiest way to discover these kinds of habits is looking through your bank statements, to see when you spend the most.

"Is it late at night? Is it the weekends? I have friends that have really bad habits of when they're bored on the train, they start buying things."

Understanding these instincts, enables us to put in steps to prevent them.

"You can be better equipped to make an alternative decision and go, 'Do you know what? I can just take a deep breath and not purchase something.'"

2. Spend an hour a week on your finances

Anniki says when she was younger, she often felt scared to check her bank balance and avoided dealing with money as much as possible.

This kind of behaviour is often linked to our education, says Claer Barrett, consumer editor at the Financial Times.

"How we felt about maths in school, maybe that burning feeling of shame of not knowing the answer or putting your hand up to answer a question and getting it wrong, that can often make us feel like, I can't do maths. So therefore, I can't do money."

"We should be really pushing on that door and trying to understand more about our financial situation."

Abigail says the only way to do this is to force yourself to tackle it head on, setting aside a set amount of time each week to look at your bank account and all your outgoings.

"It's a minimum of an hour a week.

"Just go through your finances and kind of be hit with it. It sounds a lot, but it can be really calming for your nervous system."

Doing this will often throw up outgoings that you've forgotten, such as a subscription for a gym you haven't been to in six months or a random app you've forgotten you've subscribed to, she says.

3. Don't let jargon put you off - ask questions

Often the terms associated with money can be offputting.

Claer says don't let words like investing, scare you, instead take time to learn about them.

"Whether we're talking about stocks and shares, or investing in a pension. We need to give ourselves every advantage financially," she says.

"So being shy or feeling shameful, not asking these interrogating questions is the worst thing we can do."

She suggests making a list of things you are unsure about, whether that's consolidating pensions or asking for a pay rise at work, and slowly working through them.

Don't be too hard on yourself if you're just starting.

"We're all a work in progress. I've got my financial to do list at the back of my diary. There are some things that have been on it for more than a year.

"That's just life, but as long as I can try and do something every week towards making my financial situation a better place, that's moving forward."

4. Set up a freedom fund

Many of us are already too stretched keeping up with the costs of everday living to even think about saving.

But for those who can afford to, Abigail suggests setting up a "freedom fund" to give you options when life gets difficult.

She recommends setting up an easy access account only in your name and not joint, and to put a portion of your income away every month.

Unlike an emergency fund pot for things like unexpected car and house repairs, a freedom fund is money designed to "make you happier."

"So when a job no longer serves you, you can think 'I've got some money sat away so I can go and look for something else.'

"Or if you want to leave a partner, that freedom fund can give you the ability to walk out."

If you've been introduced to Cat Burns through Celebrity Traitors, you might assume she's a tough nut to crack.

As a player, she's cautious, cunning, inscrutable. Her cards are firmly clasped to her chest. She's foxier than Fantastic Mr Fox, with as many lives as her name suggests.

People who've heard her music know that's a façade.

Her debut album, Early Twenties, was full of chatty self-interrogation and emotional candour, as Burns described falling in love, coming out to her family, and the social anxiety of her autism and ADHD.

Powered by the breakout single Go, a raw but soulful break-up ballad, it earned the 25-year-old a Mercury Prize nomination for album of the year.

Six months later, she was whisked off to Ardross Castle to become the pot-stirring, strategic mastermind of the Traitors' new spin-off series.

By that point, Burns had largely finished her second album, How To Be Human, so anyone hoping for musical treachery and skullduggery will be disappointed: There are no cash-in covers of Talking Head's Psycho Killer, or Macy Gray's I Committed Murder.

Death, however, lingers over the album like a dense fog, as Burns grapples with the loss of her father on Christmas Day 2020, and her grandfather, John Burns, who passed away last April.

His is the first voice you hear on the album, sending Burns a simple message of love from his hospital bed, over the opening chords of Come Home.

She picks up the narrative, remembering one of their last days together, in a drab Welsh ward room.

"You were laying there with such love in your eyes / Did you know it then or did you think you had more time? / Cause you made us all hold hands."

Tenderly, Burns imagines her grandfather, part of the Windrush generation, being summoned back to heaven by God, the reward for a life well lived.

"You've done everything I could have wanted with the time I gave you... It's time you come home."

It's a stunning piece of writing, specific yet universal, that establishes grief as the overriding theme of Burns' second album.

Andrew Garfield's inspiration

On the itchy, impatient Can Time Move Faster, she daydreams about escaping its grasp. Later, she observes that a break-up is "like grieving someone who's still alive".

Along the way, she drops breadcrumbs for anyone else who's stumbling through loss to follow.

She treats sadness as a stimulus on the gospel-inspired All This Love, determinedly pushing herself back into life.

"I've been going out more / I've been seeing friends on the weekends / Saying yes more," she sings. "And maybe that's thе gift in all of this."

The song, she says, was inspired by watching a video of Spider-Man actor Andrew Garfield discussing his own mother's death.

"He said, 'Grief is love with no place to go', and I was like, 'That's such an amazing way to put it'," she explained in a video for the charity Marie Curie UK.

"So when I'm bawling like a complete lunatic, what centres me is remembering this is just the love that I can't [share]. I would like to have a hug, and I would like to have a conversation but I can't."

"That's why I made All This Love, because life keeps going and you have to move with it."

It's one thing to dispense advice, but quite another to follow it, as Burns discovers on a suite of ballads about a disruptive break-up.

Judging by the lyrics, it was an amicable split - which only made letting go harder.

"All we talk about is work and weather… God I hate this / Why are you acting like you haven't seen me naked?" she agonises over the acoustic strum of Small Talk.

Eventually, she realises this can't go on, concluding: "No contact is hard, but better for us in the long term."

Throughout the album, Burns' vocal delivery is almost conversational, making her songs feel like intimate conversations with an older, wiser (and sometimes a little bit messed up) sibling.

Cleverly, the understated production never distracts from the lyrics, with ringing piano chords and gossamer strings that tesselate seamlessly with Burns' soulful melodies.

There are more playful moments, too. The swoonsome groove of GIRLS! soundtracks a celebration of horny feminism; while Lavender is a delirious devotional for a new partner, that you can just tell was sung with a wide-eyed smile.

At 16 tracks, the record could have done with a touch of Burns' cut-throat approach to the Traitors.

A few songs that dwell on similar lyrical themes could have been culled; and it would have been thrilling to hear the star's Machiavellian side explored amidst the radio-friendly pop.

But that's a minor quibble. As her fellow contestants have discovered, Burns is a good hang. Even though, as she sings on the percolating title track, her autism means she's often "acting" in ways that she's learned people will expect.

"I wonder if they can tell / That I'm not like them / But I'm trying to be human," she sings.

But if nothing else, the record shows Cat Burns is as human as the rest of us: Anxious, hopeful, downbeat, idealistic, flawed and funny.

Just make sure to watch your back.

Zarah Sultana has said her new left-wing political party founded with Jeremy Corbyn is aiming at "running" the government despite high-profile splits emerging in the movement.

The Coventry South MP left the Labour Party in July to form a new group, operating under the temporary name Your Party, which she said was a "40-year project" and not a protest.

Her comments follow a difficult start for the party - which has attracted hundreds of thousands of sign-ups - but has been dominated by rows over leadership, finances and even its name.

Speaking to BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson, the MP said she wanted to "change people's lives for the better", which requires "winning state power".

The new movement will be "socialist, democratic and member-led", Sultana told the BBC.

And if elected, it would focus on "nationalising, building council homes, providing people with good secure jobs".

She added: "I'm in politics because of a desire to change people's lives for the better, and that means winning state power, that means actually running government.

"We're building a party of the left that can win power and deliver justice."

She added: "This is a 10, 20, 30-year project."

In the four months since the fledgling party was announced it has been beset by disagreements and threats of legal challenges between the founding members.

Sultana's interview came after three officials quit the board of MoU Operations Ltd (MoU) - set up to overseeing Your Party's finances and membership - saying they were leaving her as the sole director.

The resignations follow reports the party is still trying to recover around £800,000 in donations and data held by MoU.

The problems stem from a schism in the party caused when Sultana launched a membership portal through its official email account, taking payment and data from an alleged 20,000 people.

Corbyn branded the emails "unauthorised" and urged supporters to cancel direct debits.

The membership portal was later replaced, but not before the dispute escalated into legal threats and accusations of a "sexist boys' club".

The pair have since reconciled.

Sultana has pushed for the party to be called The Left Party, while Corbyn hinted the name Your Party could stay.

Members will vote on the official name at a founding conference in Liverpool next month.

Sultana said she hopes to co-lead the new party with Corbyn, but will "throw her hat in the ring" if members opt for a single leader when the party constitution is agreed at conference.

During the interview, Sultana accused Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of having "all the features of a fascist politician".

"I have legitimate concerns about what a Nigel Farage government would do to trade unionists, to working class communities, to minority communities, to LGBT people," she said.

"When someone attacks trade union rights, when they are not supportive of minority communities, when they try to get us out of the European Convention on Human Rights so they can get away with anything, that is a descent into fascism," she said.

A surge in support that has seen Reform UK opening up a 10-point lead in national polls reflects a wider crisis in politics, driven by voters left "angry" by years of austerity, she said.

Reform UK have been contacted for a response.

In order to "stop Reform," Sultana said her new party will work with a resurgent Green Party.

Asked whether she would join the Greens, Sultana said she liked new leader Zack Polanski "but we are a different party".

"There will be those alliances and those electoral pacts in the future," she added.

Asked if her movement would split the left and take votes away form the traditional centre left voting base of Labour, Sultana said Labour "probably should have worried about that before it enabled genocide and passed through austerity".

"The Labour party actually was quite content because it thought the left had nowhere else to go - and now the left has choices."

You can listen to the interview with Zarah Sultana on the latest episode of Political Thinking with Nick Robinson on Saturday at 17:30 on BBC Radio 4 or on BBC Sounds.

The family of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexual abuse, have celebrated his title of 'prince' being stripped from him as a victory which is "unprecedented in history".

"This normal girl from a normal family has taken down a prince. We are so proud of her," Sky Roberts, Giuffre's brother, told BBC Newsnight through tears.

But Mr Roberts told the BBC removing his title was "not enough" and called for an investigation into Andrew, adding that he "needs to be behind bars". Andrew has denied all claims against him.

Giuffre took her own life earlier this year. The publication of her posthumous memoirs this month intensified pressure on the Royal Family over Andrew's friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday that King Charles III had initiated a formal process to "remove the style, titles and honours" of Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Asked how Giuffre might have responded to that decision, her brother said: "She is celebrating from the heavens now saying 'I did it'."

"She'd be so proud. He's just Andrew."

In her memoir, Giuffre - a prominent accuser of Jeffrey Epstein - alleged Andrew had sex with her three times as a teenager and that he "believed that having sex with me was his birthright."

Andrew, who has denied the allegations, reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in 2022 which contained no admission of liability or apology.

"It truly is a moment for her and all survivors," Giuffre's sister-in-law Amanda Roberts said.

"Everything she fought for was not in vain," she added, noting that she "broke down" when she heard the news at work.

While the pair celebrated what they described as a moment of "victory", Giuffre's brother also stressed it was "not enough".

"We have to have some sort of investigation that goes further into this," he said.

"[Andrew is] still walking around a free man. He needs to be behind bars."

Earlier this month, Andrew voluntarily gave up several royal titles including the Duke of York, saying "we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family."

The King's decision to strip Andrew of his title of 'prince' follows the emergence this month of emails from 2011 that showed Andrew had maintained contact with Epstein, despite claiming otherwise.

Giuffre's family also addressed the implications of the King's decision for the US, where calls have grown for the release of documents related to Epstein. Partial records have been released that named Andrew as a passenger on a flight with Epstein.

"The US government hold the key to the larger scope of the Jeffrey Epstein case," Mr Roberts said.

"The UK is setting an example for what the US should be doing right now."

"There's many more of them, I promise you."

The government has been urged to get a grip on long A&E waits with campaigners saying it is the rot eating away at the heart of the NHS.

The plea by Age UK comes as it publishes a report detailing "heartbreaking" stories of how older people are suffering, spending hours in corridors and side-rooms.

It highlights cases of people being left in their own excrement, having blood transfusions and even dying in these make-shift treatment areas.

And it said older people were much more likely to experience long waits, with data showing one in three over 90s faced 12-hour waits at A&E in England last year.

The government said the situation was unacceptable, but added it was taking action.

The Age UK report said while 12-hour waits were once virtually unheard of, they had now become the norm in too many places.

It highlighted the case of an 86-year-old who was left in a disused corridor for 36 hours.

Another man, who had soiled himself, was left in his own excrement for 20 hours, while others suffered the indignity of having to use bedpans in corridors.

Susan, 79, from south London, is one of those who has experienced a long wait, according to the Age UK report.

She said it took 22 hours for a bed to be found for her after she arrived at hospital having had a heart attack.

She spent a large part of her wait on a couch in a curtained-off area near A&E where there was no privacy. She believes she heard two people dying on couches nearby.

Regarding one of the deaths, she said: "I was next to a man who was clearly unwell. He was alone for some time, then his wife was brought in. They whispered as they had little privacy. Then, after a long silence, she was led away, crying. I'm certain he died. And he died right next to me."

Risky

The report pointed to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from NHS England which showed there were more than 1.7 million 12-hour waits in 2024-25 at major hospitals – around one in 10 of those who attended A&Es.

Two thirds of them were experienced by people aged over 60.

The report said as well as being horrible, long waits were risky.

Age UK director Caroline Abrahams said it was a "crisis hiding in plain sight" and that the government should take immediate action.

"No-one should have to spend their final days in a hospital corridor where it's impossible for staff to provide good, compassionate care.

"As we head into winter, we fear that an already difficult situation will get worse.

"Long waits are like a rot eating away at the heart of the NHS, undermining public trust."

Age UK said a major cause of the problem was the lack of available support in the community, which meant hospitals could not discharge patients who are medically-fit to leave wards. That results in a shortage of beds available for new patients.

It called for a renewed effort and drive to tackle this.

RCN general secretary Prof Nicola Ranger said the problems were a "moral stain" on the health service.

"No elderly or vulnerable person should be forced to endure these conditions.

"Overstretched and understaffed nursing teams work hard every day to deliver the best care, but they face an impossible task."

Health minister Karin Smyth said: "No one should receive care in a corridor - it's unacceptable, undignified and we are determined to end it."

She said the government was investing more money in the NHS and detailed data on corridor care would soon be published to hold the system to account.

"To tackle a problem you've got to be honest about it," she added.

Pornhub says the number of UK visitors to its website is down 77% compared with July, when more rigorous age checks for sexually explicit sites were introduced under the Online Safety Act.

It claims sites that are ignoring the new requirements are benefiting.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify Pornhub's claim - however, data from Google shows searches for the site have decreased by almost half since the law came into effect.

This could be a consequence of people reducing their porn use but could also be partly explained by people visiting the site through alternative means such as a VPN, which masks a user's location.

Pornhub is the most visited porn site in the world - and the 19th most visited on the entire web, according to data from Similarweb.

Under the OSA, anyone accessing such websites in the UK now has to prove they are over 18 with age checks such as facial identification.

The firm's claim is the latest indication that people in the UK are changing how they use the internet since the Online Safety Act came into effect.

According to Ofcom, visits to pornography sites in general in the UK have reduced by almost a third in the three months since 25 July.

The regulator said the new law was fulfilling its primary purpose of stopping children from being able to "easily stumble across porn without searching for it".

"Our new rules end the era of an age-blind internet, when many sites and apps have undertaken no meaningful checks to see if children were using their services," the watchdog said.

Ofcom told the BBC it believed the number of people using VPNs for general use reached 1.5 million daily in July, after the law came in, but has since decreased to around one million.

Meanwhile, research by Cybernews counted more than 10.7 million downloads of VPN apps in the UK from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store across 2025.

"It is likely that people not wanting to verify their age or identity to access sexual content, for example because of privacy concerns, are using VPNs to get around this," Dr Hanne Stegeman from the University of Exeter told the BBC.

"As the location of website visitors are usually determined through IP addresses, it could be that those figures are inaccurate when a portion of visitors are using VPNs."

And Cybernews information security researcher Aras Nazarovas told the BBC people in the UK "can and do" use VPNs.

"After age checks kicked in, VPN apps jumped to the top of the UK App Store, and at least one provider saw a 1,800% surge in downloads," he said.

"So part of Pornhub's 'missing' UK audience hasn't vanished - it's being reclassified as non‑UK traffic."

But he said he believed "the rest" was indeed "users shifting to sites that don't require age checks".

'Exponential growth'

Alex Kekesi, an executive at Pornhub's parent company Aylo, told the BBC the new rules were unenforceable.

She said Ofcom faced an "insurmountable task" trying to get an estimated 240,000 adult platforms - visited by eight million users per month in the UK - to follow the rules.

This compares with the regulator taking action against fewer than 70 sites for non-compliance.

Ofcom says it prioritises sites to be investigated based on how risky they are and their number of users.

And Ms Kekesi claimed some pornographic sites have benefited from flouting the rules. The BBC has not independently verified this.

"There are a number of sites whose traffic has grown exponentially, and these are sites that are not complying," she said.

Ms Kekesi also has concerns about the content on some of these sites.

She told the BBC of one which seemed to encourage users to search for content featuring girls below the age of consent.

Aylo says it has shared details of this and other sites with Ofcom.

The regulator has defended the way it enforces the new rules, saying increasing traffic to sites can be one factor that triggers an investigation.

"Sites that don't comply and put children at risk can expect to face enforcement action," it told BBC News.

Ofcom's data shows that the top 10 most popular sites all have age assurance deployed. These sites represent a quarter of all visits to adult sites from across the UK.

It adds that over three quarters of daily traffic to the top 100 most popular sites are going to sites that have age assurance.

The government has also defended the regulator, and said protecting children online was a "top priority" for ministers.

"Where evidence shows further intervention is needed to protect children, we will not hesitate to act," it added in a statement.

Should devices do the checks?

Ms Kekesi spoke to the BBC while in the UK for a meeting with Ofcom and government officials, where she has been making Pornhub's case that age checks should be done at device level, rather than by individual websites.

She said the UK stands out in having persuaded the platform to introduce age checks.

A number of jurisdictions have sought to compel Pornhub to check its users' ages, but the response of the site has been to block users rather than comply.

Ms Kekesi said the UK was different because it allowed sites to offer a range of different solutions, meaning that Pornhub could use methods - such as email-based checks - which didn't require collecting biometric data.

She denied that the threat of hefty fines for non-compliance had been the primary motive for complying, pointing to the contrast with France - its second biggest market - where it had cut off access rather than agreeing to what regulators demanded.

Ian Corby of the Age Verification Providers Association rejected calls for a switch to device-based verification.

But he added the group shared a desire for a "level playing field" meaning age checks should be "robust, not superficial or fake".

Chelsea Jarvie, a cybersecurity company founder who has been researching methods of age assurance for a PhD at Strathclyde University, told the BBC both approaches to age checks would be needed - with neither age verification on platforms nor devices being a "silver bullet".

"For somebody to truly be safe online we need different layers of controls throughout their browsing journey," she said.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

Spoiler warning: This article reveals details from the eighth episode of The Celebrity Traitors

Parting may have been sweet sorrow for young lovers Romeo and Juliet, but when Shakespeare's famous line is uttered by traitor Alan Carr, it's more like murderous Macbeth.

He has struck in plain sight - again - killing off Claudia's "Queen of the Castle", Celia Imrie, by quoting the bard while pouring her a goblet of wine at a lavish dinner for the remaining contestants.

"Oh honestly, just because I was brave enough to get the one traitor out," Imrie said when she learned her fate, referencing the faithfuls FINALLY getting rid of traitor Jonathan Ross.

Imrie's demise was indeed a sombre moment for all concerned.

"I love being here, it's been gorgeous and I'm devastated. I so wanted to stay to the end, but it's a game," she said sadly.

After learning it was Imrie's last supper, the burly Joe Marler became emotional, saying: "My darling Celia is gone. My heart is broken. I'm sick of this - they are taking out some lovely, lovely people.

"I'm not having it any more."

But as Ed Gamble pointed out in BBC Two's Celebrity Traitors Uncloaked, Imrie's demise was ripe for humour as well.

Her accidental fart in episode three was the gift that kept giving.

"Farting is such sweet sorrow," he said to her, in a line worthy of William Shakespeare himself, who also enjoyed contrasting dark, dramatic moments with bursts of humour.

Carr clearly got more of a taste for murder as the show progressed, bumping off Paloma Faith in plain sight and handing Lucy Beaumont her death warrant.

But this time round, his conscience re-emerged, and he found it "heartbreaking".

"I'm really hoping third time's a charm," he said, trying to convince himself he still had it in him to keep going.

Host Claudia Winkleman was rattled by losing Imrie, declaring: "I love her", as she stalked out of the breakfast room clutching Imrie's portrait.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carr later looked a bit edgy about the upcoming round table, telling Cat Burns his Shakepearean moment was "so obvious".

"I'm so nervous, what do we do if everyone goes for me today," he said.

"I just hope no one puts two and two together with the the eggy Shakespeare quote."

Later on, the contestants had to put their doubts and suspicions aside for the day's challenge - in a creepy room full of headless dummies, which needed their Celebrity Traitor heads to be reattached.

Easy enough - except our celebrities had to navigate through a fiendish array of red laser beams, all pointing at awkward angles, meaning the most nimble had the easiest time of it.

Nick Mohammed turned out to be something of a twinkle toes, making it through with relative ease.

But poor Marler had a trickier time of it, saying: "I'm not one of the nimble, agile rugby players" and calling himself a bit of an "oil rig".

Carr, noting that Claire Balding's head "looked like Boris Johnson", decided to carry Imrie across first, saying: "I took Celia's head because I missed her - even though I murdered her, but I had pangs of guilt!"

He later took his own, admitting: "I grabbed my own head, I'm a narcissist… well someone's got to love it!"

After a nail-biting finish, the celebs managed to complete the task, earning Claudia's praise, including a surprising accolade.

"Thank you, you were amazing. That was better than my wedding day," she said.

After all the camaraderie of the challenge, it was then even harder for the contestants to face the round table, where with just six of them left, everyone felt exposed.

Burns was hoping she hadn't "given them enough to cling on to", while Kate Garraway was uncharacteristically bullish.

"I'm going to fight to the death," she said.

There was plenty of fighting talk from Marler too, who looked like he was going to name and shame Carr and vote for him.

But he ended up voting for Garraway, calling her a "dipsy damsel", and she was voted off - yet another faithful biting the dust.

She gave a touching speech as she departed, referencing the death of her husband, political lobbyist and therapist Derek Draper. Draper died last year after living with extreme complications after getting Covid during the pandemic.

"I've had a lot of years of being very serious and very sad, and you've all allowed me to play the most amazing game," she said.

"But also you've allowed me to play and be silly and have fun. Every single one of you.

"I'm going to take away a new idea at the start of a new kind of life really, so thank you very much for that."

David Olusoga also got a couple of votes, including one from Carr, who managed to mostly lie low during the discussion, along with Burns.

Or so they thought.

Marler is onto them, convinced they're both traitors, and is now rallying Mohammed and Olusoga to back him as they go into the final.

"I'm hoping to get really close to Alan and Cat so they keep me in the game, and then I can try and pull the rug from under their feet last minute," he said.

"Sorry traitors, I'm coming for you."

There was a telling moment right near the end of the show, when each remaining contestant had to look the others in the eye and tell them they were a faithful.

The others kept straight faces, but Carr couldn't manage it without dissolving into a fit of giggles. One X user called it "the TV moment of the year".

"I am a faithful, I just get nervous," Carr told everyone.

"Yeah, I'm not having it," said Marler.

If Marler puts his full force behind his convictions, he could prove to be unstoppable.

Ever since I was a child I have loved wildflowers. I have fond memories of the woods in Sussex, where I grew up, filling with primroses early in the year and carpeted with bluebells in the spring.

I always used their nicknames - "eggs and bacon" for birds-foot-trefoil (a native plant known for its yellow slipper-like petals) and "bread-and-cheese" for the young shoots of the British tree hawthorn, which my friends and I would eat. And pretend to like!

We picked rosehips from hedges too, which we split open to make itching powder, perfect for playground pranks.

But later in life, on my walks through the countryside, I began to notice dwindling numbers of wildflowers. I missed the grasslands, bursting with colour, that I'd so enjoyed in my childhood.

According to the charity Plantlife, approximately 97% of wildflower meadows have been lost across the UK since the 1930s, while species-rich grassland areas, which used to be a common sight, are now among the most threatened habitats.

"It's definitely a story of severe overall decline, both in the cover of flowers but also the diversity," explains Simon Potts, professor of biodiversity and ecosystem services at Reading University.

So, what will happen if there isn't more intervention to save wildflowers? What will the future look like?

"Awful, in a word," says Prof Potts. "If we, let's say, take a scenario where we just continue business as usual as we are now, we will still keep losing our wildflowers.

"And with that, we lose the beneficial biodiversity like the pollinators and the natural enemies of pests."

As a bee lover I am on team pollinator - which is one of the reasons why my husband and I decided to plant our own wildflower meadow. Not just for the beautiful colours but for the vibrancy of the bees, butterflies and moths flying around, which need that habitat.

Yet since then, I've come to understand that the loss of wildflowers could bring - and the other perhaps more unexpected consequences too.

Higher food prices, less wildlife

"The consequence will be for farmers," argues Prof Potts. "They will get low yields and poor quality crops, consumers will have to pay higher prices. Our environment will be degraded, eroded, will have less wildlife.

"Many of them [wildflowers] produce nectar and pollen, which is super important for things like wild bees, hoverflies, and butterflies, that can pollinate crops."

Prof Daniel Gibbs, food security lead at the University of Birmingham's School of Biosciences, also has concerns about the long-term consequences.

"Over time, and alongside pressures from climate change and land degradation, this could make our food system more fragile, and negatively impact food security," he says - meaning we could, for example, find ourselves with more limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

There are also studies showing that fields near wildflower-rich margins or meadows produce better-quality fruit and higher yields.

"Wildflowers can also support some bugs, like spiders and carabid beetles… [which] do an absolutely fantastic job in controlling some of the pests that we get on crops - that can either damage the crop or sometimes lower the quality of the produce," adds Prof Potts.

He describes wildflowers as almost like little factories, pumping out beneficial bits of biodiversity that can help with food production.

"Farmers may have to rely more on manual pollination," Prof Gibbs says. "Or we may need to look to increasing food imports, both of which can drive up prices."

Farming under strain

Multiple factors are behind the decline. Sarah Shuttleworth, a botanist with Plantlife, argues that certain intensive farming methods have contributed.

But some intensive farming methods have also allowed farmers to grow food for the country - and farmers I spoke to pointed out that they face tough financial choices.

Though there have been government subsidies in place for years, meaning farmers are paid by the government to support wildlife on their land, since Brexit the way these grants are paid has changed, with different schemes designed in each of the devolved nations.

In England, there has been frustration in some quarters about the speed and rollout of the grants and the fact that some schemes have been paused - such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), though this is due to reopen, while others extended at the last minute, leaving farmers less able to plan ahead.

Speaking about the SFI scheme, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spokesperson told the BBC: "We inherited farming schemes which were untargeted and underspent, meaning millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.

"We have changed direction to ensure public money is spent effectively, and last year all the government's farming budget was spent."

They also acknowledged that wildflowers are vital, providing food and habitats for pollinators and wildlife, as well as improving biodiversity, and added: "We are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history and under our agri-environment schemes we are funding millions of hectares of wildflower meadows."

As part of its new deal for farmers, Defra said it has committed nearly £250m in farming grants to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector.

Mark Meadows, Warwickshire chair of the National Farmers' Union (NFU), maintains 6m (20ft) wildflower strips around many of his fields. He feared that without an extension to his current agreement with Defra he'd have to return some wildflower margins to crop production.

"I'd love [to] be profitable enough [to] say 'Look, we'll leave 5% of our farmland,'… but agricultural costs have gone up a lot," he says.

Other farmers share similar tales. David Lord is a third-generation farmer in Essex and member of the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

"I'm 47 and I've never known farming to be under so much strain," he says.

Knowing what funding for nature recovery on farms will be in place in future years is, he says, crucial. "It takes time and care and cost to maintain [wildflowers]... A lot of farmers aren't going to be minded to just keep these habitats in place without the funding."

Why we created a meadow

There are some glimmers of hope.

Prof Potts says there has at least been a slowdown in decline over the last couple of decades - and perhaps a limited recovery for some species.

"I think [this] reflects some of the agricultural practices that have been a bit more nature-friendly."

Nature writer, and author of Flora Britannica, Richard Mabey, agrees that the decline in wildflowers is far from universal.

Certain species such as cow parsley, yarrow and knapweed are in fact spreading, and he welcomes an influx of non-native plants and "garden escapes", such as snowdrop and buddleia.

Even so, Prof Potts says: "It is the most precious things that we're losing the most of." This includes cornflowers, corncockle and corn marigold - what he terms the iconic British countryside flowers.

And the overall decline is why my husband and I decided to create our own wildflower meadow from an overgrown arable field.

There was a field next to our house, which I had put beehives in, with permission from the owner. I had often thought it would be wonderful to create a wildflower meadow around those hives, so when the opportunity arose to buy the field, we decided to go ahead.

A conservation specialist advised us on where to buy the seed. It was particularly important to get some yellow rattle seed, which helps keep more dominant grasses in check. This in turn gives other wildflowers more opportunity to gain a foothold.

Our first year after sowing was amazing. A patriotic bloom of red, white and blue burst across the field. The red was from poppies which came from the disturbed ground. The white was ox-eye daisies, bladder campion and wild carrot, with spires of bright blue from viper's bugloss.

The colour has changed over time - the splash of red did not return, but different wildflowers arrived in their place.

The most spectacular year was last summer. Orchid seeds I'd scattered many years before and almost forgotten about, managed to flower. We counted more than 100 bee orchids — which to a bee lover like me, was the climax of years of work.

In fairness, I should admit it's years of my husband Chris's work. He found an old-fashioned seed fiddle for us to use — a hand-held device used to scatter the seeds in a controlled way, operated as though drawing a bow across a violin.

He also cut the hay at the end of summer, initially trying with a scythe - Poldark-style - but ultimately finding a small tractor does the trick in a less backbreaking way.

Of course, many people are not in the fortunate position we found ourselves in, of being able to create a wildflower meadow. And in the UK, you cannot plant wildflowers just anywhere — you would most likely need the landowner's permission.

But growing numbers of people are trying to create their own patches of wildflowers. Plantlife reports that more and more are joining its No Mow May initiative — an annual campaign to let wildflowers grow freely, by packing away the lawnmower.

Sarah Shuttleworth says just a small spot can make a difference, especially when it comes to pollinators. "Anyone who has a patch of grass could do their bit… the idea is that you're recreating a meadow-type management scheme, but in a very, very micro scale."

Time for a radical rethink?

The charity would like to see wildflower habitats being given the same kind of protection as other precious landscapes. Meanwhile Prof Potts thinks, "We need a bit more of a radical think about how to support farmers to do the right thing."

New housing developments could also prove a way to create wildflower meadows. Under the government's Biodiversity Net Gain scheme, set up under the Environment Act, developers creating building sites are obliged to ensure the same amount of biodiversity at the end of the project, as they had at the start, plus 10%.

Ben Taylor manages the Iford Estate, farming land near Lewes in Sussex. For a recording of Open Country on Radio 4, he showed me with great pride around a new wildflower meadow, which was part of a 90-acre site, funded as a pilot by the scheme.

"We have seen hares here now, which we never had a year or two ago, before we started doing this. So it's really exciting..."

But, I wondered, does it make sense to take all of those acres of land out of food production?

Mr Taylor says the soil was poor there anyway. "You have to have nature to be able to grow food," he adds. "Because you need the pollinators as you need the ecosystem, the food chains, the soil webs and everything else to be able to grow food sustainably in the long-term - so I like to think of it as a reservoir of biodiversity."

Many ecologists also want us to look beyond the benefits the wildflowers provide for us.

"Those species are just valuable in their own right, regardless of what they do or what they provide… They've also got their own right to be," argues Dr Kelly Hemmings, associate professor in ecology at the Royal Agricultural University.

Richard Mabey stresses a similar point. "They are important, in my view, for ethical reasons, simply because they exist.

"Beyond that they are the infrastructure of all other life on the Earth, the fundamental base of the food chain."

Top picture credit: 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. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published - click here to find out how.

Bills for some of the country's most intensive business energy users will be cut by £420m from next year, the government has said.

Speaking to the BBC, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said about 500 businesses in industries including steel, glass and cement would benefit from a 90% discount on their electricity network charges - up from 60%.

Unite's secretary general Sharon Graham said she welcomed help with costs, but the amount saved would be "quite small" with profits in the energy sector "obscene" and in need of an overhaul.

It comes less than a month from the Budget, with the government facing questions about how it can unleash growth, while keeping its commitments on employment rights.

Last year, the UK's energy costs were the highest in the G7 group of developed nations.

For the same year, the International Energy Agency reported that UK industrial energy costs were almost double the average across its members.

Speaking to the BBC at Encirc Glass in Chester, Peter Kyle said the funding was aimed at "levelling the playing field" with international competitors, and that the bill reduction would be paid for through existing government tax revenue.

"The savings we have made for it, we have targeted to make businesses like this more competitive, so therefore creating more jobs, more wealth, more revenue for our country," he said.

The scheme is applicable across England, Wales, and Scotland, and some of the companies which will benefit from the change include Tata Steel at Port Talbot, and INEOS in the Scottish town of Grangemouth.

The reduction is on network costs, which are what businesses pay to access the UK's electricity network, and make up about 20% of a company's energy bill - meaning a 90% reduction works out at about 18% of the overall energy bill.

Reacting, UK Steel said the uplift in compensation was "greatly welcomed" - but that it would only mean a cut of 14 million for the beleaguered industry and firms wouldn't see the benefit until payments were made in arrears in 2027.

"It is frustrating that the steel industry must face yet another year of uncompetitive electricity prices," said UK Steel's director general Gareth Stace.

'It's complete toffee'

Speaking to the BBC at Unite's head office in London, its secretary general Sharon Graham said employers told her they were competitive on "every single measure", with the exception of industrial energy costs.

Research carried out by Unite, which has more than 1.1 million members, found that £30bn in profit was made in the UK's energy sector in 2024 - with industrial energy bills made up of about 29% energy company profits.

Its research also looked at the breakdown for domestic bills.

Roughly a third of what a household pays on energy bills in a year - about £500 - goes towards energy company profits, Graham said, urging the government to nationalise the industry.

This is a suggestion opponents criticise for its potentially enormous cost.

"You know, this argument that keeps coming up, 'oh, it will take us down the road of Liz Truss' - is just complete toffee," said Ms Graham.

"The reality is, what Liz Truss did is that she borrowed for tax cuts for the rich, and she didn't have a plan that she put before the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility]."

'More holes than Swiss cheese'

While the action on energy bills will provide some relief for heavy industry, there are broader concerns in the business community about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill.

One of Labour's flagship policies, it is currently making its way through Parliament and would give workers certain rights from their first day of work.

These would include protection against unfair dismissal and the right to guaranteed hours - which businesses say could potentially make it riskier to hire someone.

The Federation of Small Business has said nine out of 10 of its members are worried about the bill, with two thirds saying they would recruit less staff in response to it.

Even the Resolution Foundation, the progressive think tank seen as having deep ties within the government, has cautioned the bill would "inhibit hiring" with "little obvious gain to workers".

Peter Kyle said he did not see improved rights of workers as being "in contention with" the interests of business.

He said it would be implemented in a way that would contribute "towards the ability for businesses to make money by increasing productivity, by having workers that have security and rights that are fit for the age that we live in".

However, he added he was "listening very closely" to employers and workers "to make sure there's a probationary period that gets that balance right".

For Sharon Graham, the legislation as it stands is "a burnt out shell".

"I think I said at one point it had more holes than Swiss cheese," she said.

"The reason that I said that, is that what looks good when you first look at it - and I've been a negotiator for 35 years, so I do look under the bonnet - fire and rehire [is] banned.

"But then what you realise that is, in most circumstances, if an employer said there was financial difficulty, if a council says there's financial difficulty, then they can fire and rehire you."

We've all looked at our bank account and wondered why we don't have as much money as we thought we did, and suddenly, the bills, shopping and socialising begin to add up.

For many of us, our relationship with money is strained and dealing with financial matters leaves us feeling overwhelmed or stressed.

If you're struggling to get on top of your finances, here are four ways to help you manage your money better.

1. Look at when you spend money

Sitting down and thinking about what actually drives you to spend money can help you stop destructive patterns, says journalist and author Anniki Sommerville.

When she previously worked in a very stressful corporate role, she bought new clothes everytime she achieved something difficult or challenging.

"I felt like I deserved to reward myself.

"I had this pattern of spending, which was like 'you've done a really good presentation, now you deserve to buy yourself something.'"

Abigail Foster, a chartered accountant and author, says the easiest way to discover these kinds of habits is looking through your bank statements, to see when you spend the most.

"Is it late at night? Is it the weekends? I have friends that have really bad habits of when they're bored on the train, they start buying things."

Understanding these instincts, enables us to put in steps to prevent them.

"You can be better equipped to make an alternative decision and go, 'Do you know what? I can just take a deep breath and not purchase something.'"

2. Spend an hour a week on your finances

Anniki says when she was younger, she often felt scared to check her bank balance and avoided dealing with money as much as possible.

This kind of behaviour is often linked to our education, says Claer Barrett, consumer editor at the Financial Times.

"How we felt about maths in school, maybe that burning feeling of shame of not knowing the answer or putting your hand up to answer a question and getting it wrong, that can often make us feel like, I can't do maths. So therefore, I can't do money."

"We should be really pushing on that door and trying to understand more about our financial situation."

Abigail says the only way to do this is to force yourself to tackle it head on, setting aside a set amount of time each week to look at your bank account and all your outgoings.

"It's a minimum of an hour a week.

"Just go through your finances and kind of be hit with it. It sounds a lot, but it can be really calming for your nervous system."

Doing this will often throw up outgoings that you've forgotten, such as a subscription for a gym you haven't been to in six months or a random app you've forgotten you've subscribed to, she says.

3. Don't let jargon put you off - ask questions

Often the terms associated with money can be offputting.

Claer says don't let words like investing, scare you, instead take time to learn about them.

"Whether we're talking about stocks and shares, or investing in a pension. We need to give ourselves every advantage financially," she says.

"So being shy or feeling shameful, not asking these interrogating questions is the worst thing we can do."

She suggests making a list of things you are unsure about, whether that's consolidating pensions or asking for a pay rise at work, and slowly working through them.

Don't be too hard on yourself if you're just starting.

"We're all a work in progress. I've got my financial to do list at the back of my diary. There are some things that have been on it for more than a year.

"That's just life, but as long as I can try and do something every week towards making my financial situation a better place, that's moving forward."

4. Set up a freedom fund

Many of us are already too stretched keeping up with the costs of everday living to even think about saving.

But for those who can afford to, Abigail suggests setting up a "freedom fund" to give you options when life gets difficult.

She recommends setting up an easy access account only in your name and not joint, and to put a portion of your income away every month.

Unlike an emergency fund pot for things like unexpected car and house repairs, a freedom fund is money designed to "make you happier."

"So when a job no longer serves you, you can think 'I've got some money sat away so I can go and look for something else.'

"Or if you want to leave a partner, that freedom fund can give you the ability to walk out."

Prince Andrew is to lose his 'prince' title and leave his Windsor mansion, Royal Lodge, following weeks of intense scrutiny over his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In a statement on Thursday night, Buckingham Palace said the King's brother will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Andrew gave up his other royal titles earlier this month, including the Duke of York, after facing more questions about his private life.

In a posthumous memoir published earlier this month, Virginia Giuffre repeated allegations that, as a teenager, she had sex with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions. Andrew has always denied the claims.

Reacting to the latest developments, Ms Giuffre's family said she "brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage". Giuffre took her own life earlier this year.

In its statement, the Palace said the King "has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew".

As well as the title, the Palace said "formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease" on Royal Lodge.

He will be moved into private accommodation in Sandringham Estate, which is understood to be privately funded by King Charles.

"These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him," the statement continued.

The Palace also expressed its support for victims of "any and all forms of abuse".

Andrew's two adult daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice, will retain their titles as princesses and Andrew is still eighth in line for the throne.

It is understood that Sarah Ferguson, his ex-wife, will also move out of Royal Lodge and will make her own living arrangements.

Until this month, she kept the title Sarah, Duchess of York - but she reverted to her maiden name of Ferguson after Andrew voluntarily gave up the usage of the Duke of York title.

It is understood that the government was consulted on the decision to strip Andrew of his prince title, and made clear it supported the decision.

Reacting to the news on BBC Question Time, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said it sent a "very powerful message to the victims of grooming and sex offences".

"This is a huge development and a big step for the King to take. I have to say, just, you know, as an initial response, I really support the step that he's taken."

The stripping of Andrew's titles caps off weeks of mounting pressure on the Royal Family.

The scandal over his connections to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was reignited by sexual abuse allegations in Ms Giuffre's memoir.

While Andrew has always strenuously denied abusing Ms Giuffre, earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

Details about Andrew's living arrangements have also come under the spotlight, with fresh questions being asked in recent days about how he is able to fund his lifestyle despite not being a working royal.

Andrew has lived at Royal Lodge since 2004, after signing a 75-year lease deal the previous year with his landlord, the Crown Estate, which operates as an independent property company.

The Grade II-listed Royal Lodge on the Windsor estate boasts a gardener's cottage, a Chapel Lodge, six-bedroom cottage and security accommodation.

Last week, more details emerged about how he could afford his mansion, after the lease agreement was revealed.

The arrangement means he has only ever paid a token annual rent on Royal Lodge, and even that might not be required under his deal with the Crown Estate, a lease document seen by BBC News confirms.

The deal meant that instead of paying annual rent, Prince Andrew made large lump sum payments upfront, including for renovations.

In effect, those payments - which totalled more than £8m and were detailed in a National Audit Office report - meant he was buying himself out of future rent obligations for the duration of the 75-year lease, based on paying in advance a notional rent of £260,000 per year.

In a separate development, it emerged this week that Prince Andrew hosted Jeffrey Epstein at Royal Lodge as part of his daughter Beatrice's birthday celebrations in 2006 - two months after a US arrest warrant had been issued for Epstein for the sexual assault of a minor. Andrew did not respond to a request for comment.

For the Palace, Thursday's announcement is an attempt to draw a line under the scandals surrounding the former Prince Andrew - now simply Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

After weeks, months, years and even decades of scandals, all the titles and privileges of the former Prince Andrew have been completely removed.

There are no modern precedents for such a colossal loss of royal status.

Unlike the previous statement on his future, this was from Buckingham Palace rather than Andrew himself.

It's a ripping off the bandage moment, which the Palace will hope will finally draw a line under the endless oil slick of bad news stories about Andrew.

The sliver of dignity given to him, that he was voluntarily choosing not to use his titles, has been taken away.

Titles such as Duke of York, the Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh will be forcibly removed.

All that remains is his place in the line of succession, and new guidance from the House of Commons Library has shown that too could be removed by Parliament, if Commonwealth realms give their consent.

After more than a year of pressure, the so-called Siege of Royal Lodge is over, with Andrew losing his independent lease and moving to the King's estate in Sandringham. It's not revealed where exactly, but it's not Wood Farm.

Sandringham is privately owned by the King, ending any reliance on a Crown Estate property.

His ex-wife Sarah Ferguson is said to be making her own separate arrangements, not currently expected to be with Andrew in Norfolk.

It makes Andrew dependent on the King for his home and his money. And also it has to be said, a duty of care for his brother's welfare.

This announcement might head off the immediate threat of Parliament taking matters into its own hands and voting to strip Andrew of his titles. MPs had become increasingly vocal about debating the scandal and the Public Accounts Committee had been flexing its muscles over protecting public funding.

But it's going to be much harder for the Palace to settle an authentic feeling of public outrage. The sense of unchecked privilege surrounding Andrew has genuinely irritated the public and it will take more than taking away his titles to dispel the sense of ugly entitlement.

Polling by YouGov published on Thursday showed Andrew now has the worst ever popularity ratings for a royal, with 91% holding a negative view of him.

And the King heard that unhappiness first hand from a heckler in Lichfield this week, who shouted: "How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?"

For the Palace, there will be questions about why such longstanding problems around Andrew weren't dealt with before now. So much of this has been known for so many years, the unsuitable business links, the unexplained funding, the connections with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The cast list changes - alleged Chinese spies or dictators' wealthy relatives - but the story has remained the same.

The unsavoury link with Epstein was being widely discussed 14 years ago when Andrew was stripped of his role as trade representative.

Andrew has been losing jobs but continuing to live in a royal style for many years now and it's stretched public patience. It felt arrogant and out of touch.

A few clicks on Google will find decades of stories raising doubts about his suitability, often accompanied by pictures of Andrew in a top hat, like a renegade Monopoly piece.

There might be some public fatigue around this Andrew story, people might feel they've heard enough and are sick of it. But there was also an angry public mood that expected a clearer sense of accountability.

What remains to be seen now is whether a wider can of worms has been opened.

Who knew what and when at the Palace about Andrew and Epstein? Do we need more transparency around royal property and finance. How many houses do they have up their sleeve in Windsor? And what fresh scandals about Andrew could still emerge?

But this scorched earth approach to Andrew's future might also show an unexpectedly steely side to the King.

While other members of the Royal Family were part of the decision, including Prince William, it's understood that it was the King who made this big call on his brother's future. Whatever the grandstanding of pundits, it can't have been an easy decision.

There seemed to have been an irrevocable change of attitude when an email from Andrew to Epstein emerged, showing their continued contact. It seemed to destroy Andrew's promises in the Newsnight interview to have cut ties.

It no longer seemed tenable that Andrew should have the honour of being a prince and living in some splendour among the royals in Windsor.

Instead the King highlighted the victims of abuse, whose stories lie at the dark heart of Epstein's circle.

It's not long since Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, was grinning on the Buckingham Palace balcony, waving to the crowds. He'll wake up tomorrow morning for the first time in his life as Mr Mountbatten Windsor, private citizen.

Prince Andrew has been stripped of his "prince" title and will leave his Windsor mansion, Royal Lodge, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday.

The King has "initiated a formal process" to remove his titles, it said, and Andrew now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Andrew, 65 - the King's younger brother - has continued to face more questions about his private life in recent months.

His links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein have caused problems for the Royal Family. The prince, who relinquished his titles earlier this month, has always strongly denied any wrongdoing.

What did Buckingham Palace say?

"His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew," Buckingham Palace said in a statement on Thursday evening.

"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor."

It also addressed the place where he lives, Royal Lodge.

"His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.

"Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

"Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse."

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement was "very brutal," royal historian Kelly Swaby told the BBC.

"Ordinary people don't care about the semantics, they want to see punishment, and public opinion is very much against Andrew, the Palace knows that, and the language very much reflect that".

The decision was made, and action taken, due to serious lapses in Andrew's judgement, it is understood.

It is also understood that the wider Royal Family and the government was consulted, and made clear it supports the decision.

• Follow live updates

Where will he live?

It is understood Andrew will be relocated to the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, but details about his specific housing have not been released.

The wider Sandringham estate covers approximately 20,000 acres (8,100 hectares) with 600 acres (242 hectares) of gardens - and the Palace has not said which property he will stay in.

One of the options previously suggested as where he could move to was Wood Farm, located on the estate surrounds, a cottage privately owned by the monarch.

Described as "small and intimate" by former housekeeper Teresa Thompson, the cottage has strong associations with Andrew's parents.

His father, the late Duke of Edinburgh, chose the secluded property as his permanent home when he retired from public life in 2017.

It is understood that Sarah Ferguson, 66, Andrew's ex-wife, will also move out of Royal Lodge and will make her own living arrangements.

Formal notice was given to surrender the lease at the Royal Lodge on Thursday and it is understood that Andrew's move to Sandringham will take place "as soon as practicable".

Will he get money from the King?

It is understood Andrew's accommodation will be privately funded by the King.

And the King will make "appropriate private provision" for his brother as he moves out of his home.

Royal sources have previously said the King has tried to apply pressure, and last year cut off Andrew's funding last year.

Andrew also cultivated his own independent sources of funding since leaving public life, including business connections with China, the Gulf States and a recently curtailed project with a Dutch start-up company.

Earlier this week, Parliament's spending watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee wrote a letter detailing the "considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money" relating to Andrew.

The letter asked what the Crown Estate's plan was to ensure value for money in any future agreements with Andrew.

How will his titles be removed?

Andrew is understood not to have objected to the King's decision to remove his titles - and it will take place with immediate effect.

His birth certificate will not need to be changed as the title change will not apply respectively.

The titles being stripped are: Prince, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. And he will no longer have the right to be called His Royal Highness. The honours of Order of the Garter and Knight Grand Cross of the Victorian Order will also be removed.

To remove the titles, the King will send Royal warrants to the Lord Chancellor - who is David Lammy - to officially remove them.

It comes just weeks after Andrew voluntary gave up his other royal titles, including the Duke of York.

On 17 October, Andrew said he would stop using the titles because the "continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family". "I vigorously deny the accusations against me," he said.

Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice will retain their titles, as they are the daughters of the son of a Sovereign. This is in line with King George V's Letters Patent of 1917.

Until this month, Ferguson kept the title Sarah, Duchess of York - but she reverted to her maiden name of Ferguson after Andrew was stripped of his Duke of York title.

Andrew still remains eighth in line to the throne.

What led up to this?

Andrew's links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are at the centre of this latest announcement.

In recent weeks, pressure has increased on the monarchy to resolve the issue of Charles's brother, with the King heckled earlier this week by a protester.

Although Andrew denies the accusations, the Royal Family considers there have been "serious lapses of judgement" in his behaviour.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

In her posthumous memoir, Nobody's Girl Virginia Giuffre repeated allegations that, as a teenager, she had sex with Andrew on three separate occasions – claims he has always denied.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

What happens next?

Historians tell the BBC Andrew will continue to be frozen out of royal public life.

He is already not invited to attend royal public events., and his recent appearances have been limited to private, family events, such as funerals or memorials.

This fiasco will continue to dog the royal family, says historian and author Andrew Lownie.

"They're finally getting ahead of the story, but this isn't the end of it," Lownie told the BBC.

The Palace is "finally taking some decisive action" - but it "won't completely satisfy the public disquiet".

Campaigners against the monarchy say there should be a wider investigation into what the Royal Family might have known about Prince Andrew's links to Epstein.

"This isn't just about family. It's not a private matter," says Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic.

Buckingham Palace has announced that Prince Andrew is to lose his prince title and will be leaving his Royal Lodge home in Windsor.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor - as he is now to be known - gave up his other royal titles earlier this month, including the Duke of York, after more questions and allegations about his private life.

The palace said the former prince has agreed to leave Royal Lodge as his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein continue to cause controversy.

The decision was made due to serious lapses in Andrew's judgement, it is understood, and he continues to deny the accusations against him.

It is also understood that he did not object to the King's decision to remove his titles.

• Get the latest on this story

The statement from Buckingham Palace in full:

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.

Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.

These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has released a string of emails, as pressure builds over her breaking housing rules.

The chancellor rented out her south London family home when she moved into Downing Street - but it emerged this week she did not have the correct rental licence from her local council.

The house falls in an area where Southwark Council requires private landlords to obtain a selective licence at a one-off cost of £945.

She has apologised and initially said she was not aware a licence was necessary.

But on Thursday, Reeves said her husband had found emails that showed the letting agent had told them a licence was needed - and that the agent would apply on their behalf.

She has published the two chains of emails dated between 17 July and 13 August 2024, in which Nicholas Joicey, Reeves' husband, and the Harvey & Wheeler letting agents correspond about the necessary steps to rent out the property.

Here are selected parts of the emails

On 17 July, the letting agent tells Reeves's husband that electrical tests need to be carried out on their property, before adding: "Once we have that to hand we will need to apply for a licence under the Selective Licensing Scheme via Southwark Council."

One email from the letting agent also appeared to confirm the company was taking charge of applying for the licence.

In an email dated 22 July, the letting agent tells Reeves's husband "I can arrange the Selective Licence once the tenants move in - would you like me to arrange this for you as well after move in?"

Four days later, on 26 July, Reeves's husband asks how much the the selective licence and some other things will cost, adding: "Subject to this, I would be grateful if you could arrange these."

The letting agent responds the same day to advise that the cost is £900 and offers to arrange for the electric test needed to get the licence too.

On 13 August, Reeves's husband belatedly gets back and says "yes please, do go ahead" and arrange for the licence.

In a response the same day, the letting agent says "I will do the Selective Licence".

Letting agents Harvey & Wheeler said the property manager responsible for applying for the licence on her behalf had "suddenly resigned" before the tenancy began.

In a statement, owner Gareth Martin said: "Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply.

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.

"We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

A spokesperson for the Conservatives said that - regardless of assurances received from the estate agent - Reeves and her husband were "responsible" for ensuring a renting licence had been granted.

They have called for Sir Keir Starmer to conduct a "proper investigation" into the incident.

In her updated statement on Thursday, Reeves said: "As I said to you today, I am sorry about this matter and accept full responsibility for it.

"You rightly expect the highest standards from ministers serving in your government and I have therefore shared the correspondence between my husband and the agency with the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and I am happy to answer any further questions required."

The revelations come at a politically awkward time for Reeves, who is preparing for a Budget next month amidst speculation the government could break a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax.

Shaken, scratched and left with just the clothes he is wearing, Ezzeldin Hassan Musa describes the brutality of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the wake of the paramilitary group taking control of el-Fasher city in the Darfur region.

He says its fighters tortured and murdered men trying to flee.

Now in the town of Tawila, lying exhausted on a mat under a gazebo, Ezzeldin is one of several thousand people who have made it to relative safety after escaping what the UN has described as "horrific" violence.

On Wednesday, RSF leader Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo admitted to "violations" in el-Fasher and said they would be investigated. A day later a senior UN official said the RSF had given notice that they had arrested some suspects.

About an 80km (50-mile) journey from el-Fasher, Tawila is one of several places where those lucky enough to escape the RSF fighters are fleeing to.

"We left el-Fasher four days ago. The suffering we encountered on the way was unimaginable," Ezzeldin says.

"We were divided into groups and beaten. The scenes were extremely brutal. We saw people murdered in front of us. We saw people being beaten. It was really terrible.

"I myself was hit on the head, back, and legs. They beat me with sticks. They wanted to execute us completely. But when the opportunity arose, we ran, while others in front were detained."

Ezzeldin says he joined a group of escapees who took shelter in a building, moving by night and sometimes literally crawling along the ground in an effort to remain hidden.

"Our belongings were stolen," he says. "Phones, clothes - everything. Literally, even my shoes were stolen. Nothing was left.

"We went without food for three days while walking in the streets. By God's mercy, we made it through."

Those in Tawila told the BBC that men making the journey were particularly likely to be subjected to scrutiny by the RSF, with fighters targeting anyone suspected of being a soldier.

• Reports of mass killings in Sudan have echoes of its dark past
• New videos show executions after RSF militia takes key Sudan city
• A simple guide to what is happening in Sudan

Ezzeldin is one of around 5,000 people thought to have arrived in Tawila since the fall of el-Fasher on Sunday.

Many have made the entire journey on foot, travelling for three or four days to flee the violence.

A freelance journalist based in Tawila, working for the BBC, has conducted among the first interviews with some of those who made the journey.

Near to Ezzeldin sits Ahmed Ismail Ibrahim, his body bandaged in several places.

He says his eye was injured in an artillery strike, and he left the city on Sunday after receiving treatment in hospital.

He and six other men were stopped by RSF fighters.

"Four of them - they killed them in front of us. Beat them and killed them," he says, adding that he was shot three times.

Ahmed describes how the fighters demanded to see the phones of the three who were left alive and went through them, searching their messages.

One fighter, he says, finally told them: "OK, get up and go." They fled into the scrub.

"My brothers," he adds, "they didn't leave me behind.

"We walked for about 10 minutes, then rested for 10 minutes, and we continued until we found peace now."

In the next tent in the clinic run by medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Yusra Ibrahim Mohamed describes making the decision to flee the city after her husband, a soldier with the Sudanese army, was killed.

"My husband was in the artillery," she says. "He was returning home and was killed during the attacks.

"We stayed patient. Then the clashes and attacks continued. We managed to escape.

"We left three days ago," she says, "moving in different directions from the artillery areas. The people guiding us didn't know what was happening.

"If someone resisted, they were beaten or robbed. They would take everything you had. People could even be executed. I saw dead bodies in the streets."

Alfadil Dukhan works in the MSF clinic.

He and his colleagues have been providing emergency care to those who arrive - among them, he says, are 500 in need of urgent medical treatment.

"Most of the new arrivals are elders and women or children," the medic says.

"The wounded are suffering, and some of them they already have amputations.

"So they are really suffering a lot. And we are trying to just give them some support and some medical care."

Those arriving this week in Tawila join hundreds of thousands there who fled previous rounds of violence in el-Fasher.

Before its seizure by the RSF on Sunday, the city had been besieged for 18 months.

Those trapped inside were bombarded by a barrage of deadly artillery and air strikes as the army and the paramilitaries battled for el-Fasher.

And they were plunged into a severe hunger crisis by an RSF blockade of supplies and aid.

Hundreds of thousands were displaced in April when the RSF seized control of the Zamzam camp close to the city, at the time one of the main sites housing people forced to flee fighting elsewhere.

Some experts have expressed concern at the relatively low numbers arriving at places like Tawila now.

"This is actually a point of worry for us," says Caroline Bouvoir, who works with refugees in neighbouring Chad for the aid agency Solidarités International

"In the past few days we have about 5,000 people who have arrived, which considering we believe there were about a quarter of a million people still in the city, that is obviously not that many," she says.

"We see the conditions that those who have arrived are in. They are highly malnourished, highly dehydrated, or sick or injured, and they are clearly traumatised with what they have seen either in the city or on the road.

"We believe that many people are stuck currently in different locations between Tawila and el-Fasher, and unable to move forward - either because of their physical condition or because of the insecurity on the road, where militias are unfortunately attacking people who are trying to find safe haven."

For Ezzeldin the relief of having reached safety is tempered by the fears for those still behind him on the journey.

"My message is that public roads should be secured for citizens," he pleads, "or humanitarian aid sent to the streets.

"People are in a critical state - they can't move, speak, or seek help.

"Aid should reach them, because many are missing and suffering."

More BBC stories on the conflict:

• Sudan's years of war - BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear
• A pregnant woman's diary of escape from war zone
• El-Fasher siege: My son's whole body is full of shrapnel
• Sudan's fertile region where food is rotting amid famine and war

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

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

President Donald Trump has announced the US will start testing nuclear weapons in what could be a radical shift in his nation's policy.

"Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, as he was about to meet the Chinese president on Thursday.

"That process will begin immediately."

The world's nuclear-armed states - those acknowledged as belonging to the so-called nuclear club and those whose status is more ambiguous - regularly test their nuclear weapons' delivery systems, such as a missile that would carry a nuclear warhead.

Only North Korea has actually tested a nuclear weapon since the 1990s - and it has not done so since 2017.

The White House has not issued any clarifications to the commander-in-chief's announcement. So it remains unclear whether Trump means testing nuclear delivery systems or the destructive weapons themeselves. In comments after his post, he said nuclear test sites would be determined later.

Six policy experts have told the BBC that testing nuclear weapons would raise the stakes in an already dangerous moment where all signs showed the world was heading in the direction of a nuclear arms race - even though it has not yet begun.

One of the six did not agree that Trump's comments would have a major impact - and another did not think the US was provoking a race - but all said the world faced a rising nuclear threat.

"The concern here is that, because nuclear armed states have not conducted these nuclear tests in decades - setting North Korea aside - this could create a domino effect," said Jamie Kwong, fellow in the nuclear policy programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"We're at a very concerning moment where the US, Russia and China are potentially entering this moment that could very well become an arms race."

Darya Dolzikova, Senior Research Fellow for Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) - a London-based defence and security think tank - said Trump's comments would change the situation massively.

But, she added, "there are other dynamics globally that have raised the risks of nuclear exchange and further proliferation of nuclear weapons levels higher than they have been in decades".

Trump's message, she said, "is a drop in a much larger bucket, and there are some legitimate concerns of that bucket overfilling".

The experts pointed to escalating conflicts where one or more of the warring parties is a nuclear power - the war in Ukraine, for instance, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened at times that he could use nuclear weapons.

And then there were flare-ups - if not full-fledged conflicts - such as the one between Pakistan and India this year, or Israel - which has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons - attacking Iran - a country the West accuses of trying to build nuclear weapons (a charge Tehran denies).

Tensions on the Korean peninsula and China's ambitions in Taiwan add to the overall picture.

The last existing nuclear treaty between the US and Russia that limits their amounts of deployed nuclear arsenals - warheads ready to go - is set to expire in February next year.

In his announcement, Trump said the US had more nuclear weapons than any other country - a statement that does not match figures updated regularly by another think tank that specialises in the field, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri).

According to Sipri, Russia has 5,459 nuclear warheadsm followed by the US with 5,177, an China coming a distant third with 600.

Other think tanks reported similar numbers.

Russia announced recently it had tested new nuclear weapons delivery systems - including a missile the Kremlin said could penetrate US defences and another that could go underwater to strike the US coast.

The latter claim may have led to Trump's announcement, some of the experts suspected, even though Russia said its tests "were not nuclear".

Meanwhile, the US has been watching China closely - with increasing concern that it will reach near-peer status, too, and posing a "two-peer nuclear risk", experts said.

So a resumption of US nuclear testing could prompt China and Russia to do the same.

A Kremlin spokesman said that "if someone departs from the moratorium, Russia will act accordingly".

In its response, China said it hoped the US would fulfil its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - which both countries have signed but not ratified - and honour its commitment to suspend nuclear testing.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said a US resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be "a mistake of historic international security proportions".

He said the risk of nuclear conflict "has been steadily rising" over several years and, unless the US and Russia "negotiate some form of new constraints on their arsenals, we're likely going to see an unconstained, dangerous, three-way arms race between the US, Russia and then China in the coming years".

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the average person should be "very concerned" because there has been an increase over the past five years in nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.

The last US nuclear weapons test - underground in Nevada - was in 1992.

Kimball said it would take at least 36 months to get the Nevada site ready for use again.

The US currently uses computer simulations and other non-explosive means to test its nuclear weapons, and therefore does not have a practical justification to detonate them, multiple experts said.

Kwong said there were inherent risks even with underground testing, because you must ensure there is not a radioactive leak above ground and it does not affect groundwater.

While blaming Russia and China for ratcheting up the rhetoric, Robert Peters, senior research fellow of strategic deterrence at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that, while there may not be a scientific or technical reason for testing a warhead, "the primary reason is to send a political message for your opponents".

"It may be necessary for some president, whether it's Donald Trump or whomever, to test nuclear weapons as a demonstration of credibility", he said, arguing it was "not an unreasonable position to hold" to be prepared to test.

While many others the BBC spoke to disagreed, all offered a fairly dire assessment of the current situation.

"My sense is that, if the new nuclear arms race hasn't already begun, then we're currently heading towards the starting line," said Rhys Crilley, who writes on the subject at the University of Glasgow.

"I worry every day about the risks of a nuclear arms race and the increasing risk of nuclear war."

The US tested the first atomic bomb in July 1945 in the desert at Alamogordo, New Mexico.

It later became the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in warfare after dropping two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of the same year during World War Two.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus have been given "new information" about Chancellor Rachel Reeves' rental arrangements, Downing Street has said.

Sir Laurie is now reviewing emails sent and received by the chancellor's husband.

On Wednesday, Reeves apologised for her "error" in failing to obtain the correct licence when renting out her home in south London.

The PM had said he was satisfied the matter could be "drawn to a close" and that Sir Laurie had decided not to launch an investigation.

On Thursday, No 10 said the further information had been found "following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor's husband".

The spokesperson added that Sir Keir had "full confidence" in his chancellor and guaranteed she would deliver the Budget on 26 November.

The Conservatives have called for an investigation and said Reeves should be sacked if she is found to have broken the law.

Reeves put her London home up for rent in July 2024, when Labour won the general election and she moved into 11 Downing Street.

The house falls in area where Southwark Council requires private landlords to obtain a selective licence at a cost of £945.

The chancellor first became aware that her property did not have the correct licence on Wednesday when the Daily Mail, who first reported the story, contacted her.

In a letter sent to Sir Keir later that evening, Reeves wrote: "This was an inadvertent mistake. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and have applied for the licence.

"I sincerely apologise for this error and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have."

Sources close to the chancellor said that her letting agent had told her it would advise her if a selective licence was needed and did not do so.

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

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

US presidential trips abroad have traditionally been an opportunity to display the power of the American nation on the world stage. Donald Trump's five-day swing through eastern Asia, on the other hand, has been a display of the power of Trump - but also, at times, of that power's limitations.

Trump's stops in Malaysia, Japan and South Korea over the course of the first four days were an exercise in pleasing a sometimes mercurial American president. It was an acknowledgement that Trump, with the flick of a pen, could impose tariffs and other measures that have the potential to devastate the economies of export-dependent nations.

His sit-down with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday, however, was something entirely different.

It was a meeting of equals on the global stage, where the stakes for both nations – for their economies, for their international prestige, for the welfare of their people - were enormous.

With China, Trump may flick his pen, but such actions come with consequences. They come with a cost.

• Trump hails 'amazing' meeting with Xi but no trade deal agreed
• Xi and Trump find temporary truce as China plays longer game

For the first four days, Trump's most recent foray into global diplomacy was smooth sailing.

Each stop was punctuated by a blend of traditional trade negotiations – deals made under the shadow of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs – and personal accommodations that at times bordered on the obsequious.

In Malaysia, Trump secured access to critical minerals and made progress toward finalising trade arrangements with south-east Asian nations. He also presided over a treaty that should ease border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia – the kind of "peace deal" the American president loves to tout.

In Japan, Trump's Marine One flew past a Tokyo Tower lit red, white and blue – with a top in Trumpian gold.

Newly elected Prime Minister Sanai Takaichi detailed $550bn in Japanese investments in the US and offered the American president a gift of 250 cherry trees for America's 250th birthday, and a golf club and bag that belonged to Shinzo Abe, the assassinated former prime minister who bonded with Trump in his first term.

She also became the latest foreign leader to nominate Trump for his much-desired Nobel Peace Prize.

Not to be outdone, South Korea welcomed Trump with artillery firing a 21-gun salute and a military band that played Hail to the Chief and YMCA – the Village People song that has become a Trump rally anthem.

President Lee Jae Myung held an "honour ceremony" for Trump during which he gave the American leader his nation's highest medal and a replica of an ancient Korean dynastic crown.

Lunch with Lee featured a "Peacemaker's Dessert" of gold-encrusted brownies. Later that day, the Koreans served Trump vineyard wine at an intimate dinner in Trump's honour with six world leaders attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference summit.

In the US, Trump may be the subject of "No Kings" demonstrations by Americans who disapprove of his boundary-testing expansions of presidential power, but during his East Asia swing he was treated like royalty.

And like the kings of old, Trump arrived in Korea seeking tribute – in the form of $200bn in cash payments, $20bn a year, from South Korea to the US, to be invested at the direction of Trump's government. Agreement on the terms of those payments helped ensure that the tariff rate on South Korean exports to the US would drop from 25% to 15%.

The main event of Trump's Asia trip came in its final hours, however, as he met with Xi.

There, the power dynamic between leaders of the world's two largest economies was decidedly different than the interactions Trump had with his foreign counterparts in previous days.

Missing were all the pomp and the pageantry. No military bands, no honour guards, no carefully crafted menus celebrating mutual national affection. Instead, the two leaders and their top aides sat across a long white negotiating table in a nondescript military building just off the runway of Busan's international airport.

It was perhaps a reflection of the high stakes that when Trump shook hands with Xi in Busan, he appeared tense. It was a far cry from his relaxed attitude when he told me the day before that he was optimistic he would have a good meeting.

"I know a little bit about what's going on because we have been talking to them," he said. "I'm not just walking into a meeting cold."

For months, Trump had been threatening higher tariffs on Chinese exports to the US – as a source of revenue for the American treasury as well as to pressure China to open its markets and control the export of chemicals used to make the drug fentanyl.

China, unlike many of America's other trading partners, responded with escalation, not concessions.

If tariffs were a source of economic hardship for China, then Beijing would target America's vulnerabilities. It suspended purchase of US agricultural products and proposed export controls on its large supply of critical minerals - resources that the US, and much of the world, rely on for high-tech manufacturing.

Trump's mood was upbeat after the meeting, which he described as "amazing" and graded a 12 on a scale of 1-10. The president appeared in a good mood even as the plane jostled from rough turbulence as it climbed into the sky.

But it was a battle of wills and economic pain set the two nations on a path that ultimately led to Thursday's meeting and an agreement on both sides to de-escalate.

The US lowered its tariffs, while China eased access to critical minerals, and pledged to resume importing US agricultural products and increase purchases of US oil and gas.

While it may not have been a breakthrough, it was an acknowledgement by both sides that the existing situation was unsustainable.

The international order that will take its place, however, is far from clear. As Xi acknowledged in his opening remarks at the bilateral meeting, China and the US "do not always see eye to eye with each other".

"It is normal for the two leading economies in the world to have frictions now and then," he said.

That may represent an improved outlook after months of tension, but it was also an sign that "frictions" are here to stay.

China has global and regional ambitions and a growing willingness to expand its influence.

Trump, for his part, has attempted to reorder American priorities abroad, using US economic might to pressure allies and adversaries alike. And it is those American allies – nations like Japan and South Korea that have long relied on American political, economic and military support - that are scrambling to adjust to the new reality.

Some of that scrambling comes in the form of a bend-backward willingness to accommodate Trump in forms large and small. Gifts and dinnertime honours are easy, but multibillion dollar payments, increased military spending and permanent tariffs take a toll.

And they could ultimately prompt a reevaluation of relations with America – and, as a result, with China.

Trump may have received a king's welcome in South Korea, but, in what could be viewed as a bit of on-point symbolism, as he departed, it was Xi who was arriving. And the Chinese leader's Korean hosts had promised a diplomatic reception equal to that received by the Americans.

Xi is fully participating in the Apec leaders meetings – proceedings that Trump chose to skip. If there is a vacuum created by America's international manoeuvres, it is a void China appears more than willing to fill.

Trump may be returning to America with everything he wanted from this trip. But, in a twist on the Rolling Stones song that he used to play at his political rallies, it's not yet clear that he got what America needs.

The stump of the beloved Sycamore Gap tree could be damaged by tributes left by visitors, the National Trust said.

The charity, which along with the Northumberland National Park Authority looks after the site by Hadrian's Wall, has added a protective cage of wire mesh netting to the fenced-off stump to protect it.

It has shown signs it could regrow after it was maliciously cut down by two men from Cumbria, but visitors leaving physical tributes could put the tree at risk, the charity said.

Andrew Poad, the site's general manager for the National Trust, said: "This regrowth is extremely fragile. Every step on the soil or contact with the stump risks damaging the tree's chance of recovery."

The tree was deliberately felled by Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers, who travelled from Cumbria one night in September 2023 to chop it down.

They were convicted of criminal damage in July and sentenced to more than four years in prison.

The tree was a much-loved landmark that inspired photographers and artists.

Since its felling, some visitors have been leaving tributes such as stones or small items at the site by Hadrian's Wall.

However, disturbing the remains of the tree or the ground around it could hamper any possible regrowth.

People have been asked to enjoy the site from the designated path and share their memories through "photographs and stories" rather than physical tributes.

"The regeneration of the stump offers hope to many people, and it has been uplifting to see the tree defiantly growing despite the trauma it endured," said Tony Gates, CEO of the Northumberland National Park Authority.

"This is a moment for patience and care, allowing nature to do what it does best."

Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.

With power down, problems with communications and navigating parts of the island treacherous, the authorities in Jamaica have not yet been able to give a detailed assessment of the damage inflicted by Hurricane Melissa.

But the devastating impact of the Category 5 storm on communities is starting to be revealed by satellite imagery.

BBC Verify has been examining the new images to try to piece together what has been destroyed and what has been left standing.

Black River

Arguably the most striking impact can be seen in images of the southwestern coastal port of Black River.

We can identify specific buildings that have been battered or in some cases destroyed.

By comparing a satellite image taken on 9 February with one taken on 29 October - after the hurricane hit - you can see that the distinctive white roof of a building housing a market has been replaced by a gaping hole.

A little further north, a café has been wiped off the map.

At the top of the image, the red roof of a warehouse has disappeared.

The outline of the fire station next to the market is still visible but the top of the building appears to have been torn off.

Jamaica's Prime Minister Andrew Holness has described Black River as "ground zero" after sharing footage of the destruction there.

White House

Photographs of White House, a fishing village on the west coast of Jamaica which is home to several thousand people, reveal how it bore the brunt as Melissa made landfall with winds of up to 185 mph.

Nearly every structure appears to have been damaged or destroyed.

In particular, the buildings next to the beach appear to have razed to the ground.

These include restaurants called Marva's and Pelican Lookout.

The top of a large circular structure is now missing and further inland, along the main road, a cluster of shops has been hit hard.

Fishing boats in the bay - seen in satellite imagery on 7 October - have disappeared.

Montego Bay

Part of of Montego Bay - one of Jamaica's most popular tourists destinations - now resemble a brown swamp.

The shore on this section of the northwest coast has been transformed by the flood water which now stains the beach.

Authorities say facilities at the port and industrial park were inundated.

The container terminal, an oil storage facility and nearby water treatment plant were all badly affected, along with a sports complex.

The mayor of Montego Bay, Richard Vernon, has called the place "devastated" and added that locals are doing all they can to look after each other.

Montego Bay is a popular destination for cruise ships to dock and home to golf courses as well resorts next to the normally pristine white sand.

How Brady sparked Kane's NFL obsession

Why ex-punter Colquitt can help Kane

Why Kane thinks he has an advantage

Which footballers have made NFL switch?

More on this story

• NFL fixtures and results

• Get American Football news sent straight to your phone

  Published
  16 August

  

Jaywick, near Clacton-on-Sea in Essex, has been named the most deprived neighbourhood in England for the fourth consecutive time since 2010, new data shows.

Seven areas in Blackpool are also among the 10 most deprived, alongside one in Hastings and one in Rotherham, according to stats published by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on Thursday.

Half of the neighbourhoods in Middlesbrough are very deprived, making it the local authority with the highest proportion, ahead of Birmingham and Hartlepool.

Deprivation is spread across the country, with 65% of local authorities containing at least one highly deprived neighbourhood, up from 61% in 2019.

The MHCLG's Index of Multiple Deprivation looks at living conditions across an area - but does not mean that everyone in a highly deprived neighbourhood will be struggling, nor will all those in a less deprived area be well off.

The new figures do not show whether an area has become more or less well off since the previous report, but instead can show patterns of how areas have changed relative to each other.

There are pockets of deprivation surrounded by less deprived places in every region of England.

Jaywick topped the list having been previously found to be the most deprived area in the last three reports, released in 2010, 2015 and 2019.

The MHCLG found 82% of areas found to be the most deprived in 2025 were already in that category in 2019.

The department used a number of weighted metrics to determine a neighbourhood's level of deprivation, including income, crime and barriers to housing.

They are then assessed as more or less deprived compared to other neighbourhoods.

The report found that Tower Hamlets and Hackney in London had the highest levels of income deprivation among households with children.

Meanwhile, nine of the 10 local authority districts with the highest levels of income deprivation among older people are in London.

The report is the latest in a long-running series that are used by central and local government and other bodies to target resources for local services.

The government's recently announced Pride in Place funding - offering "overlooked" communities a share of £5bn - was allocated in part based on the deprivation figures from 2019.

Areas with a history of heavy industry or mining are particularly affected, the report's authors highlight, along with parts of East London and several coastal towns including Jaywick.

The former holiday resort was visited by the UN special rapporteur for extreme poverty as part of a fact-finding mission in 2018.

And last year, its local district council, Tendring, agreed a £126m 20-year improvement plan.

The previous Conservative government also used deprivation figures, along with other criteria, when deciding where would receive "Levelling Up" grants.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have Indices of Multiple Deprivation which are each published separately. No dates have yet been announced for these updates.

How is deprivation measured?

The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks all of England's 33,755 neighbourhoods, each with an average of 1,500 people, by their deprivation score.

The score is calculated from data on income, employment, education, crime, health and disability, barriers to housing and services, and the living environment.

Once all the neighbourhoods are ranked, they are split into 10 equal groups called deciles, where the first decile is the 3,375 most deprived neighbourhoods and so on.

We are using terms like "highly deprived" and "most deprived" to refer to this group of neighbourhoods. There are areas of deprivation throughout England and not everyone in a neighbourhood will experience deprivation equally.

Additional reporting by Jess Carr, Libby Rogers and Lucy Dady

The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500, and give priority to white South Africans.

The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, will apply for the next fiscal year and marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden.

No reason was given for the cut, but the notice said it was "justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest".

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme, or USRAP, which he said would allow US authorities to prioritise national security and public safety.

The notice posted to the website of the Federal Register said the 7,500 admissions would "primarily" be allocated to Afrikaner South Africans and "other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands".

In the Oval Office in May, Trump criticised South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and claimed white farmers in his nation were being killed and "persecuted".

The White House also played a video which they said showed burial sites for murdered white farmers. Trump said he did not know where in South Africa the scene was filmed.

The tense meeting came just days after the US granted asylum to 60 Afrikaners. It later emerged that the videos were scenes from a 2020 protest in which the crosses represented farmers killed over multiple years.

On his first day in office on 20 January, Trump said the US would suspend USRAP to reflect the US's lack of "ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans" and "protects their safety and security".

The US policy of accepting white South Africans has already prompted accusations of unfair treatment from refugee advocacy groups.

Some have argued the US is now effectively shut to other persecuted groups or people facing potential harm in their home country, and even former allies that helped US forces in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

"This decision doesn't just lower the refugee admissions ceiling," Global Refuge CEO and president Krish O'Mara Vignarajah said on Thursday. "It lowers our moral standing."

"At a time of crisis in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Venezuela to Sudan and beyond, concentrating the vast majority of admissions on one group undermines the programme's purpose as well as its credibility," she added.

The South African government has yet to respond to the latest announcement.

During the Oval Office meeting, President Ramaphosa said only that he hoped that Trump officials would listen to South Africans about the issue, and later said he believed there is "doubt and disbelief about all this in [Trump's] head".

A helicopter has crashed in a field in Doncaster, police have confirmed.

Emergency services were called to Ings Lane, Bentley, at about 10:15 GMT.

There has been no confirmation of any injuries.

South Yorkshire Police said the road has been closed and a spokespserson said they were asking people to "avoid the area and plan an alternative route where possible".

Lee Needham, who lives in the area, said the crash site was close to houses, train tracks, industrial units and electrical pylons.

"Whoever was piloting the helicopter more than likely saved numerous lives," he said.

Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North

The Prince and Princess of Wales have won a legal battle against a French magazine which published photographs of their private ski holiday in April, Kensington Palace has said.

The images of the royal couple and their children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, during a break in the Alps had appeared in Paris Match magazine.

A Palace spokesperson described the pictures as "long-lens paparazzi photographs" and said the accompanying article was "grossly intrusive". The BBC has approached Paris Match for a response.

Prince William and Catherine are known to want to create as private a family life as possible for their three children, and to protect them from media intrusion.

"Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess of Wales, have been successful in legal proceedings brought in France against the owner of Paris Match, which published a grossly intrusive article and long-lens paparazzi photographs of their private family holiday in the Alps in April," the Kensington Palace spokesperson said on Thursday.

"The ruling affirms that, notwithstanding their public duties as members of The Royal Family, Their Royal Highnesses and their children are entitled to respect for their private lives and family time, without unlawful interference and intrusion.

"The Prince and Princess of Wales are committed to protecting their private family time and ensuring that their children can grow up without undue scrutiny and interference.

"They will not hesitate to take such action as is necessary to enforce those boundaries."

It is understood that the summary proceedings were issued on 28 April, just shy of two weeks after the article was published, with an oral hearing held in June.

Further developments are understood to have taken place in September, with an interim order issued by the president of the first chamber of the Nanterre Court which was sealed into a final order on 14 October.

The court is understood to have ruled that the magazine had infringed the privacy and image rights of Prince William, Catherine and their children, with Paris Match ordered to pay the couple's legal costs in France and print a judicial notice acknowledging the breach.