A lampooning from a major US satire show is something of a rite of passage for politicians; as much a confirmation of status as a ritual in humiliation.

But when the Daily Show ridiculed Kamala Harris’s unfortunate predisposition for word salads earlier this year, they hit on something that has concerned even the vice president’s allies.

In the skit, impersonator Desi Lydic summarised Ms Harris’s approach to public speaking.

“It’s a process I call speaking without thinking,” she said. “It’s not about the destination of the thought, it’s about the journey and how many words you use to describe the journey.”

Spliced with real clips of Ms Harris’s speeches, the skit’s satirical brilliance lay in replicating, rather than exaggerating, their failings.

Ms Harris’s tendencies for vague terms and repetition, sometimes to the point of absurdity, have, fairly or unfairly, become a defining feature of her vice presidency and a regular source of ridicule for Republicans.

So with some Democrats now promoting her as the best candidate to replace Joe Biden on the top of the 2024 Democratic ticket after he stepped down on Sunday night, her strengths and weaknesses are under renewed scrutiny.

Those who have previously worked with Ms Harris broadly fall into two camps: those who loathe her and those who admire her.

For her supporters, Ms Harris is the best-positioned Democrat to take on Donald Trump in November.

With just over 100 days to go until election day, they point out she needs little introduction to voters. Her detractors say that is part of the problem.

Mr Biden’s disastrous debate performance has underscored for them the imperative of selecting a replacement able to withstand the on-screen rigours of a presidential race.

Ms Harris’s unexpectedly brief 2020 White House bid has not inspired confidence. When she first announced her candidacy, many saw promise in her ability to lead a future generation of Democrats.

California’s former attorney general, and a promising new senator, she appeared to have it all: good looks, a prosecutorial background and credibility among progressives. Ms Harris seemed uniquely placed to rebuild Barack Obama’s near-mythical voter coalition. Her frontrunner status even earned her a dedicated fanbase, nicknamed the “K-Hive”.

But her campaign stumbled from the outset with a series of basic missteps. Her judgment was called into question more than once amid reports of staff mismanagement, and claims her sister, Maya, was playing an outsized role for which she was neither suited nor qualified. “They had two pollsters, two campaign managers and two media consultants,” said one Democratic insider. “It was not well run.”

A flip-flop on critical policy positions – like Medicare for all – led to a suspicion that Ms Harris, who had traded heavily on the backstory of her immigrant parents and their involvement in the civil rights struggle, did not have the firm ideological core she suggested. Political pragmatism may be an important quality in a politician, but it requires a dexterity Ms Harris appeared to lack.

“She had some great moments,” said a former Obama strategist. “Like in the debate where she hammered Joe Biden pretty good.” But commentators were quick to note those moments were often scripted. She was a less agile performer when thinking on her feet – something more than one former aide told The Telegraph remains true today.

Ultimately, it was her inability to charm donors – essential to any presidential bid – that doomed her 2020 bid. She ran out of cash and quit the race before the Democratic primary had even begun.

The fates appeared to be smiling on Ms Harris when, despite skewering Mr Biden in an early debate, he chose to make her his running mate. With the pair’s White House victory, her position as his political heir seemed assured. At the time a first-term senator still finding her feet in Washington, and just 56 years old, it was an astonishing feat to find herself a heartbeat from the presidency.

If good fortune had installed her in the White House, Ms Harris’s luck soon dried up. Her vice presidency was dogged from the outset by negative press coverage. High staff turnover and reports of dysfunction in her office reignited past speculation about her chaotic management style. Meanwhile, her allies griped to reporters she was being “sidelined” by the Oval Office, and Biden aides briefed in return she was not pulling her weight, noting her lack of substantive policy accomplishments.

Allies argue the deck was stacked against Ms Harris from the very beginning.

The first half of her tenure was heavily restricted by a gridlocked US Senate, which kept her grounded in Washington to cast tie-breaking votes. A critical function, but an unglamorous administrative one.

Meanwhile, Ms Harris was handed one of the most politically noxious briefs in Mr Biden’s intray: solving the US-Mexico border crisis. With illegal immigration hitting record numbers under the Biden administration, her border tsar moniker has become a millstone around her neck.

She unnecessarily exposed herself to criticism with tactless responses in interviews, such as in 2021 when she was asked why she had not yet visited the southern border. “I haven’t visited Europe either,” she replied. It was catnip for her critics.

Another brief in her portfolio – overseeing the National Space Council – has produced no tangible results, but a speech on the subject was branded “cringeworthy” and “patronising”.

Ms Harris’s supporters have substantive responses to all the criticisms laid at her door.

First and foremost, they argue that as the first female vice president, as well as the first black and Asian American in the role, the lens through which her record has been judged is tainted with racism, sexism and rank hypocrisy.

The argument has at least some merit. Ms Harris’s staffing turnover, for instance, is comparable with that of Dick Cheney and Mike Pence, as her close friend, Democratic strategist Karen Finney, has previously pointed out.

There is little doubt, too, that as a history-breaking vice president, and deputy to America’s oldest ever commander-in-chief, she has faced an unparalleled set of expectations, without the constitutional power, or political levers, to meet them.

Rule number one of being vice president, after all, is never outshine your boss. The role can be a poison chalice, or, in John Nance Garner’s phrasing, “not worth a warm bucket of spit”.

Some of the attacks on Ms Harris, too, veer into the realm of caricature – such as the social media mockery of her laugh, which has led Trump to dub her “Laffin’ Kamala”, or misleading editing of her body language.

Real or manufactured, critics believe Ms Harris is viewed as inept and unpopular by voters. Indeed, for much of their first term, she has polled worse than the president – with the worst approval rating of any vice president in at least one poll’s history

It is why Republicans have for months campaigned on the line: vote Joe Biden, get president Kamala Harris. They believe her to be a bigger vote-loser than an 81-year-old asking the public for four more years.

Mr Biden even inadvertently reinforced that view earlier this month, when he told a press conference at the Nato summit he was the “best qualified” candidate to beat Trump. It was a drastic shift from the man who vowed to be a “bridge” to a new generation four years ago.

As he tried to defend his place as the party’s nominee, Mr Biden’s team polled how he compares against Ms Harris in voters’ estimation – an apparent effort to show she is less popular, and therefore less likely to win, than himself.

When he did drop out on Sunday night, Mr Biden made no mention of endorsing Mrs Harris in his resignation letter, instead thanking her as an “inexhaustible” partner in his work. But moments later he put out the message in a post on X. “I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year,” he wrote. “Democrats – it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

Efforts now will surely double to recast Ms Harris, and remind voters of the early promise of her 2020 bid.

Can Ms Harris shake her reputation in office? Many Democrats believe she has already made a start. After more than three years under the intense media gaze, her gaffes have become less frequent and the turmoil in her office has stopped.

She has undoubtedly grown into the international stage too: pulling off appearances at the Munich security conference and elsewhere without putting a foot wrong.

Prolific on the campaign trail

As the Biden campaign’s most significant surrogate, she has been prolific on the campaign trail and reached constituencies few others can. Insiders describe her as most effective on issues close to her heart: chief among them reproductive rights, a key battleground in the 2024 election and potential kryptonite for Republicans.

Her pitch could sway the suburban women Trump so desperately needs to win over. She has also been effective at encouraging turnout among black voters, a critical Democratic constituency where Mr Biden has been haemorrhaging support.

Most significantly, her recent media performances have improved. Some Democratic strategists speculate she may have benefited from some coaching.

The former Obama strategist said her defence of Mr Biden after his June debate with Trump was a notable example.

“She was forced to go on CNN, with probably very little briefing, and gave what I thought was an incredibly good performance under really dire circumstances,” the strategist said.

“She did two things. She was a better messenger than President Biden and she showed strength. If you want one quantity that matters more than anything in a presidential campaign, it’s strength.”

The strategist added: “So why wouldn’t we take the shot at Kamala?”

If she does secure the nomination, the Democrats will have to hope that, this time, Ms Harris makes better use of the good fortune she has been handed.

Donald Trump pressed for Joe Biden to step aside with immediate effect, as he called his rival “the single worst president in history”.

Trump telephoned CNN, the news channel, minutes after Mr Biden announced that he would “stand down” from the US presidential race to hit out at his successor in the White House.

He followed that up with a post on his social media platform Truth Social in which he claimed the president was “not fit to run… and not fit to serve”, suggesting he thought Mr Biden should leave office sooner rather than later.

It will pile the pressure on Mr Biden to quit now rather than waiting until the January inauguration of the winner of the November presidential election. 

JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, also called on Mr Biden to go, writing on X, formerly Twitter: “How can he justify remaining president? Not running for re-election would be a clear admission that President Trump was right all along about Biden not being mentally fit enough to serve as Commander-in-Chief. There is no middle ground.”

Mr Biden, 81, will continue his presidential duties and is expected to meet Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister in Washington on Tuesday.

In his call to CNN, minutes after Mr Biden had announced his exit from the race, Trump declared: “He goes down as the single worst president by far in the history of our country.”

He also boasted to the news channel that he was confident that Kamala Harris, the vice president now in the driving seat to win the Democratic nomination, would be easier to defeat than Mr Biden would have been.

Then on Truth Social, in a rallying fundraising call to his supporters, Trump did not hold back as he repeated his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

He wrote: “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was! He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement.”

Trump claimed the medical establishment as well as the “mainstream media” had covered up the president’s frailties, which had become increasingly evident in recent weeks and were brought to the fore by Mr Biden’s disastrous showing at their first television debate.

He wrote: “All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t – And now, look what he’s done to our Country, with millions of people coming across our Border, totally unchecked and unvetted, many from prisons, mental institutions, and record numbers of terrorists.

“We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

It is unclear whether Mr Biden’s decision to step aside will give a further boost to the Trump campaign or provide the Democrats with a fresh impetus to defeat the Republican contender.

The calls for Mr Biden to go now were reinforced by senior Republicans. Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House, declared: “If Joe Biden is not fit to run for president, he is not fit to serve as president. He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough.”

Mr Johnson said the Democrats’ “prospects are no better now with Vice President Kamala Harris” who he said “co-owns the disastrous policy failures of the Biden administration”. He also accused the vice president of being “a gleeful accomplice… in the largest political coverup in US history. She has known for as long as anyone of his incapacity to serve”.

Mr Biden, who mistakenly announced Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, as “President Putin”, was forced out of the public sphere after contracting Covid. Reports suggested the virus had badly affected his physical health, leaving him coughing and hoarse.

With his campaign on pause, the void was filled by a growing clamour for him to quit the presidential race, with polls showing him being beaten by Mr Trump in the battleground states.

The visit of Mr Netanyahu will focus attention on whether Mr Biden should stay in office. There had been suggestions he would remain until after the visit to prevent Israel’s prime minister from having the satisfaction of being in Washington when he quits. 

The two men have barely spoken and Mr Netanyahu is reported to be holding out in Israel for a Trump presidency, which he considers to be more supportive of his all-out war with Hamas in Gaza.

But in an official statement, Isaac Herzog, Israel’s president, thanked Mr Biden “for his friendship and steadfast support for the Israeli people over his decades long career”.  He said Mr Biden was the first US president to visit the country in a time of war, calling him a “true ally of the Jewish people” and a “symbol of the unbreakable bond between our two peoples”.

Headteachers have warned Labour that a review of behaviour in schools must not “eradicate” progress made under the former Tory government’s discipline crackdown.

Ministers are examining Conservative policies put in place to tackle pupil misconduct after suspensions and exclusions hit a record high, senior Labour sources told The Telegraph.

It marks the latest education policy being scrutinised by Sir Keir Starmer’s Government after the announcement last week that it will review the national curriculum and make it mandatory in all schools, including academies.

But headteachers warned that tampering with policies in place could result in “more chaotic schools”, with Katharine Birbalsingh, known as Britain’s strictest head, saying disadvantaged children would pay the price of any U-turns.

Ms Birbalsingh, whose London school was ranked best in the country for pupil progress last year, wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “I was never a Conservative. But I knew that what the Conservative Party was doing for kids was right. We are all about to find out what Labour policies are going to do instead.

“If Labour do what they say they will do to schools, disadvantaged kids will pay the price. The politicians will feel good about themselves and all the gains that have helped poorer kids over the last decade will be eradicated.”

Tom Bennett, the Government’s behaviour tsar, said exclusions helped prevent chaos in schools and urged Labour not to “press the panic button”.

In an article for The Telegraph, he wrote: “Schools can’t perform miracles, and some extreme behaviours can’t be managed by patience alone. As a last resort, schools need to be able to suspend, or more rarely exclude when they have to. If they didn’t, then we see classrooms and schools in chaos, victims and aggressors forced to share the same space.”

Commenting on the record suspension and exclusion figures, published last week, he added: “There’s no need to look at this data and press the panic button, because exclusions, when used legally and at the end of a long process of support, are a sign of a system working, not one that’s broken.”

Mr Bennett has not yet been involved in any discussions with the Government over plans to tackle pupil behaviour since Labour took power.

The Tories introduced measures aimed at tackling pupil disruption including behaviour hubs, a flagship scheme supporting schools that struggle with poor discipline.

Gillian Keegan, the former education secretary, also pledged to ban mobile phones from schools in England, which she said would “help improve behaviour” in classrooms. Labour has yet to say whether it would uphold the plans.

The Government has also declined to commit to keeping new sex education guidance for schools drawn up by the Tories, which urged schools not to teach contested gender ideology.

But reports suggested the new Government would overhaul measures introduced by the Tories to deal with disruptive pupils in favour of a more “inclusive” approach to poor behaviour.

The Observer reported that ministers are said to be planning to stop schools from repeatedly suspending children with special educational needs who fail to meet strict behaviour rules. It added that behaviour hubs could also be stripped of funding. Isolation booths, designated areas to which children are sent to calm down, may be scaled back.

Senior Labour sources denied the claims and insisted suspensions and exclusions would continue to play a vital role in tackling school behaviour, although they failed to rule out scaling them back. They also denied that Labour would remove funding for behaviour hubs, but said the party would look at policies to tackle deteriorating pupil conduct.

‘Powers to make sure there’s good behaviour’

Mouhssin Ismail, the principal of the top-performing Newham Collegiate Sixth Form in London, warned the Government against tampering with the current system.

“Headteachers need to have the powers to make sure that there’s good behaviour in schools. And any attempt to dilute that, despite all of the good intentions that may have on the grounds of inclusion, just creates more chaotic schools,” he told The Telegraph.

“You end up having children who are poorly behaved remaining in classes under this misguided view that them staying there does them well. But what it does is it destroys the fabric of the school for the 29 other students and [prevents] the teacher from teaching.”

Mr Ismail warned that any attempt to roll back on work done to support schools in managing behaviour would “disproportionately impact schools serving disadvantaged communities”. He also urged Labour not to place any targets on suspensions or exclusions, warning that could have “unintended consequences” for schools.

“[If] there are signals from Ofsted or comments from Government around what they want to see, then headteachers [might] guess that if they have high level suspensions then that’s going to cause problems for their school, they might get downgraded,” he said.

Behaviour in schools has deteriorated since the pandemic, with official statistics showing pupils in England were temporarily removed from school 787,000 times in the 2022/23 academic year – a 36 per cent jump in a single year and the highest suspension rate since records began. 

In total, 304,000 pupils were suspended at some point over the year, meaning a large group received multiple suspensions.

‘Could have a very damaging impact’

Department for Education (DfE) figures, published earlier this week, also showed a record number of permanent exclusions last year, with 9,400 children expelled from schools in England, up from 6,500 in the 2021/22 academic year.

Children with complex needs were more likely to face punishment than their peers, the department said. Pupils eligible for free school meals were four times more likely to be suspended and five times more likely to be expelled.

The DfE said persistent disruptive behaviour was the main driver of sanctions on pupils last year, accounting for almost half of all suspensions and 39 per cent of expulsions.

But teachers warned that keeping poorly-behaving pupils in school would make it hard to tackle problems and put additional pressure on an already stretched workforce.

Gavin Williamson, a former Tory education secretary, told The Telegraph: “Any sort of rowback on this could have a very damaging impact in terms of the real momentum that has been gained in the education attainment for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Nat Nabarro, the head teacher of Blaise High School in Bristol, said it was a “bizarre” approach, and Labour should instead focus on fixing “all the things that are causing more challenging behaviour in schools”, writing on X: “Hint, these are 99 per cent external to schools.”

Matt Jones, the principal of Ark Globe Academy and chair of head teacher organisation The Elephant Group, said that, while supposedly cruel, “behaviour rules that lead to suspensions are related to safeguarding, bullying, sexism, racism or physical assaults”. He added: “No child or adult should be expected to tolerate any of the above.”

A DfE spokesman said: “For children to learn, there should be high expectations around behaviour, and schools should expect parents to back them.

“We are determined to get to grips with the causes of poor behaviour – including through access to specialist mental health professionals in every secondary school – and have no plans to abolish behaviour hubs. But there will always be a need for exclusion and expulsion as a last resort, and this Government backs head teachers to make those decisions.”

J Edgar Hoover sensationally suggested that Prince Philip may have been “involved” with the two women at the heart of the Profumo sex scandal.

Hoover, the then-head of the FBI, sent a cable to the US embassy in London claiming he had been told that the Prince had links to both Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies.

The cable, which was sent more than 60 years ago and has since been languishing in US Department of Justice archives, has been made available after a long-running Freedom of Information request.

It contains a claim made by Thomas Corbally, an American businessman working in the industrial espionage sector, who was friends with Stephen Ward, the fixer at the heart of the scandal. 

Ward, an osteopath, had introduced Keeler, a 19-year-old model, to John Profumo, the secretary of state for war. Profumo was subsequently forced to resign over their affair, and the scandal threatened to bring down Harold Macmillan’s government.

In the cable, obtained by the Mail on Sunday, Hoover wrote: “Corbally also stated there was a rumour Prince Philip may have been involved with these two girls.”

The diplomatic cable, sent by Hoover on June 20 1963, has fuelled speculation that had already been whipped up by The Crown, the controversial Netflix series detailing Elizabeth II’s reign. 

In the Netflix show, Anthony Blunt, who was later outed as a Soviet spy, warns the Duke of Edinburgh that he will expose him over his relationship with Ward in response to the Duke threatening to expose Blunt’s treachery. The series has been dismissed as far-fetched and scurrilous, but has proved hugely popular.

The suggestion that Hoover was even linking Prince Philip to Keeler and Rice-Davies, both showgirls, will cause discomfort on both sides of the Atlantic. 

For decades, Hoover was one of the most powerful men in the US, running the FBI and its predecessor for almost 50 years until he died in 1972, and conducting campaigns against suspected subversives and radicals. 

After his death, he was accused of abusing his power, collecting evidence against powerful figures using illegal surveillance and wire-tapping.

The prospect of Prince Philip, who died aged 99 in 2021, being even indirectly caught up in one of Hoover’s operations would have severely harmed Anglo-US relations at the height of the Cold War. It has previously been reported that he was an acquaintance of Ward, amid claims they were both members of a London club. 

It was claimed that Blunt, who was the Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures, was involved in purchasing every sketch of members of the Royal family produced by Ward, a keen amateur artist, when they went on display in a London gallery.

Ward was arrested and charged with living off the earnings of prostitution. He took an overdose of sleeping pills during his trial, was convicted in absentia and died prior to sentencing. 

Keeler was introduced to Profumo by Ward at a party at the Cliveden estate in 1961, but was also having an affair with Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet spy and naval attache at the Soviet embassy in London. 

Profumo’s career could not survive the extraordinary revelations that engulfed the then-Conservative government.

An NHS hospital told a nurse who wanted to support Lucy Letby she should not give evidence in her case, it has been claimed.

A nurse who trained with Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital told The Telegraph that she was asked to be a character witness by the defence but her NHS trust advised her against getting involved.

A second nurse, and a registrar who still work for the hospital, also said they had been instructed by NHS bosses not to talk about the case, despite previously voicing their support for Letby.

Last year, Letby, 34, was convicted of the murders of seven newborns and the attempted murders of six at the hospital between 2015 and 2016. Earlier this month she was also convicted of the attempted murder of another baby girl.

But recently many scientific and medical experts have come forward to challenge the evidence that was presented to the jury.

The nurse who trained with Letby said she believed she was innocent, and had been made a scapegoat for bad practice on the neonatal ward, which she witnessed first hand.

Speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals, she said: “I never felt comfortable working on the ward, there was always an attitude of if you were a bit ballsy and happy to mock other people you fitted in very well and if you were a bit quieter and wanted to get on and do your job and keep your head down you would become a victim.”

She added: “Lucy was always very quiet with people she didn’t know but she adored looking after those babies and building that relationship.

“She got on really well with families and children and she used to get a lot of thank-you cards from the families.

“She was always very good at building rapport and looking after babies was her passion, you could tell as soon as she walked on the ward she loved it.

“I was approached by her lawyers to ask if I would be a character witness. I talked to my trust about it and I was advised it would be better not to, as it could hurt my career.”

The nurse said she had not realised how dysfunctional the Countess of Chester neonatal ward was until she moved to a different hospital.

She described how during night shifts, nurses on the ward would “pull a name out of a hat” and whoever got picked would be able to leave early, despite still being in charge of a baby.

Instead of carrying out a correct handover, they would leave a written note by the infant, leaving the baby without oversight for hours at a time.

“One thing that really struck me as odd, was on night shift, if it was quiet, they would pick a name out of a hat and that nurse would go home early,” she said.

“And it wasn’t like ‘you go home I’ll take your patient’ it was ‘write the handover on an A4 bit of paper, stick it next to the baby’. I look back and think, what an absolute idiot I was to go along with it and think that was normal.

“It wasn’t until I left and went somewhere else I realised this wouldn’t be allowed anywhere else. The ward definitely had its own little special practices.”

She also described practical jokes played on the nurses by senior staff who would use a voice changing device to phone the nurses station pretending to be patients. On one occasion after being tricked she found staff “having a right old giggle” at her expense.

According to the nurse, on one occasion Letby was also left humiliated after being called and asked to find a patient named “Micky Button”. After a fruitless half-hour search, Letby discovered it was the nickname for a piece of medical equipment.

“They thought it was really very funny that they had been able to trick Lucy when obviously it wasn’t and it was unprofessional,” she added.

“That would never happen in the hospital I am in now, so there was definitely a culture of this being fun to mock and attempt to humiliate people.”

Speaking about her thoughts when Letby was arrested she added: “My first thought was it’s not true. I thought they’ve got this massive spike in death rates and they found a scapegoat.

“I think there are some things that Lucy has done such as taking handover sheets home which isn’t normal and isn’t right, but that’s not evidence of anything more.

“Other people that I know that I’ve spoken to were all under the impression that it’s all a massive mistake. But it’s been really hard to find the courage to talk about it.

“I think she is innocent and I think there should be a retrial and I don’t understand why her defence doesn’t seem to have called some of the witnesses that could have helped. I think there has been a miscarriage of justice.”

Asked what could have caused the deaths in the neonatal unit if Letby was not responsible, the nurse said: “It sounds like it was short-staffed and they maybe shouldn’t be looking after babies that were that sick and premature.

“That probably contributed to what happened, but a spike in mortality isn’t necessarily an unusual thing. You do have ups and downs.”

Other staff have also felt unable to come forward to support Letby because they are still working for the NHS.

When The Telegraph approached former colleagues, this paper was largely met by a wall of silence, with doctors and nurses concerned about jeopardising their careers should they question the evidence and the decision reached by the jury.

One doctor who had worked alongside Letby on the Countess of Chester’s paediatric ward said he had been advised not to comment by the NHS hopsital.

Asked at his home in Chester, a 15-minute walk from the hospital, about the possibility that Letby may have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice the 41-year-old said: “Yes I did work with Lucy, but I’m afraid I just can’t say anything.”

The registrar added: “I still work at the hospital and we’ve been asked and advised not to say anything about the case.”

Another nurse who had also worked with Letby, summed up the mood both of doubt about the safety of the convictions and the widespread reluctance to discuss the matter.

“I know there are lots of people who still want answers,” she told The Telegraph.

A spokesman for the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “Due to the ongoing police investigations and the pending public inquiry, it would not be appropriate for the trust to comment further.”

NHS England declined to comment.

Russian fighter jets buzzed two US bombers over the Arctic on Sunday in what Moscow’s ministry of defence described as an operation to defend its “state borders”.

The two MiG fighter jets were scrambled when radar detected two US air force B-52H bombers approaching Russian territory over the Barents Sea.

“As Russian fighters approached, the American strategic bombers turned away from the state border of the Russian Federation,” said the ministry.

The Barents Sea is divided between Russia and Norway, and stretches from the Kola Peninsula in northern Russia to the Svalbard Archipelago towards the North Pole.

US bombers flew over Finnish airspace

Antti Hakkanen, Finland’s defence minister, later said two US bombers had flown over Finnish airspace on Sunday morning, although it was unclear whether these were the same planes.

“It is important that our membership in Nato and our alliance with the United States is also reflected in concrete action. Finland is no longer alone,” he said.

Finland joined Nato last year in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Analysts said this was the first time US bombers had been allowed to fly over northern Finland.

The Kremlin has identified the Arctic region as a priority area to challenge Nato, and Vladimir Putin has ordered his forces to boost their presence in the region.

Neither the US nor Nato have commented on the incident, but earlier this month Russian warplanes buzzed a Norwegian Air Force bomber above the Barents Sea, and in March Russian warplanes intercepted two US bombers in the same area.

Meanwhile, the Russian ministry of defence said its forces on the frontline in Ukraine had captured two more villages in the eastern Donbas region.

Russian forces have steadily been making gains over the past six months, battering Ukrainian resistance but suffering losses of more than 1,000 men every day.

Analysts said Ukrainian forces were now too weak to mount a counter-offensive this year, but Russian forces were too exhausted to break through.

On Sunday, the UK Ministry of Defence said Russia was now relying increasingly heavily on under-trained and under-equipped volunteers, highlighting its “desperation and resource strain”.

Overnight, Russia launched its fifth drone attack on Kyiv in two weeks, part of a combined missile and drone attack across the country.

No casualties were reported, although the Sumy regional administration, in north-east Ukraine, said a Russian missile had hit unspecified “critical infrastructure”.