Indian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged with fraud in the US, which has accused him of orchestrating a $250m (£198m) bribery scheme and concealing it to raise money in the US.

The criminal charges, filed on Wednesday in New York, are the latest blow to 62-year-old Mr Adani, one of India’s richest men, whose business empire extends from ports and airports to renewable energy.

In the indictment, prosecutors alleged the tycoon and other senior executives had agreed to the payments to Indian officials to win contracts for his renewable energy company expected to yield more than $2bn in profits over 20 years.

The Adani Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The conglomerate has been operating under a cloud in the US since 2023, when a high-profile company published a report accusing it of fraud. The claims, which Mr Adani denied, prompted a major market sell-off.

Reports of this bribery probe have been circling for months. Prosecutors said the US started investigating the company in 2022, and found the inquiry obstructed.

They allege that executives raised $3bn in loans and bonds, including from US firms, on the backs of false and misleading statements related to the firm’s anti-bribery practices and policies, as well as reports of the bribery probe.

“As alleged, the defendants orchestrated an elaborate scheme to bribe Indian government officials to secure contracts worth billions of dollars and… lied about the bribery scheme as they sought to raise capital from U.S. and international investors,” US Attorney Breon Peace said in a statement announcing the charges.

“My office is committed to rooting out corruption in the international marketplace and protecting investors from those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the integrity of our financial markets,” he added.

On several occasions Mr Adani met personally with government officials to advance the bribery scheme, officials said.

Mr Adani is a close ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He has long faced claims from opposition politicians alleging that he has benefited from his political ties, which he denies.

The US Attorney positions in the US are appointed by the president. The filing comes just weeks after Donald Trump won election to the White House, pledging to overhaul the US Justice Department.

Last week on social media, Mr Adani congratulated Trump on his election win and pledged to invest $10bn in the US.

“I felt really scared to be honest,” says James, describing an incident on Snapchat that left him questioning whether it was safe to go to school.

The Australian boy, 12, had had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.

Almost instantly, his phone “started blowing up” with a string of violent messages.

“One of them sounded like he was probably 17,” James tells the BBC. “He sent me videos of him with a machete… he was waving it around. Then there were voice messages saying that they were going to catch me and stab me.”

James – not his real name – first joined Snapchat when he was 10, after a classmate suggested everyone in their friendship group get the app. But after telling his parents about his cyberbullying experience, which was ultimately resolved by his school, James deleted his account.

His experience is a cautionary tale that shows why the Australian government’s proposed social media ban on children under 16 is necessary, says his mother Emma, who is also using a pseudonym.

The laws, which were tabled in parliament’s lower house on Thursday, have been billed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as “world-leading”.

But while many parents have applauded the move, some experts have questioned whether kids should – or even can – be barred from accessing social media, and what the adverse effects of doing so may be.

Albanese says the ban – which will cover platforms such as X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram – is about protecting kids from the “harms” of social media.

“This one is for the mums and dads… They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” he said.

The new legislation provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page document, which is expected to head to the Senate next week, is sparse on detail.

Instead, it will be up to the nation’s internet regulator – the eSafety Commissioner – to hash out how to implement and enforce the rules, which will not come into effect for at least 12 months after legislation is passed.

According to the bill, the ban will apply to all children under 16 and that there will be no exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.

Tech companies will face penalties of up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7) if they do not comply, but there will be exemptions for platforms which are able to create “low-risk services” deemed suitable for kids. Criteria for this threshold are yet to be set.

Messaging services and gaming sites, however, will not be restricted, which has prompted questions over how regulators will determine what is and isn’t a social media platform in a fast-moving landscape.

A group representing the interests of tech companies such as Meta, Snapchat and X in Australia has dismissed the ban as “a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges”.

Such legislation could push kids into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet”, Digital Industry Group Inc says – a fear also expressed by some experts.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged the gargantuan task her office will face when enforcing the ban, given “technology change is always going to outpace policy”.

“It will always be fluid, and this is why regulators like eSafety have to be nimble,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

But Ms Inman Grant has also raised concerns about the central idea behind the government’s policy, which is that there’s a causal link between social media and declining mental health.

“I would say that the evidence base is not settled at all,” she said, pointing to research from her own office which found that some of the most vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ or First Nations teenagers, “feel more themselves online than they do in the real world”.

This is a sentiment echoed by Lucas Lane, 15, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This [ban] destroys… my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager tells the BBC.

Ms Inman Grant would rather see tech companies clean up their platforms, as well as more investment in education tools to help young people stay safe online. She uses the analogy of teaching children to swim, rather than banning them from the water.

“We don’t fence the ocean… but we do create protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach important lessons from a young age,” she told parliament earlier this year.

But parents like Emma see it differently.

“Should we really be wasting our time trying to help kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies just want them on them all the time?” she says.

“Or should we just allow them to be kids and learn how to be sociable outside with each other, and then start these discussions later on?”

Amy Friedlander, a mother of three from the Wait Mate movement – which encourages parents to delay giving their kids smartphones – agrees.

“We can’t ignore all the positives that technology has brought into our lives. There are huge upsides, but what we haven’t really considered is the impact it is having on brains which aren’t ready for it.”

Over 100 Australian academics have criticised the ban as “too blunt an instrument” and argued that it goes against UN advice which calls on governments to ensure young people have “safe access” to digital environments.

It has also failed to win the backing of a bipartisan parliamentary committee that’s been examining the impact of social media on adolescents. Instead, the committee recommended that tech giants face tougher regulations.

To address some of those concerns, the government says it will eventually introduce “digital duty of care” laws, which will make it a legal obligation for tech companies to prioritise user safety.

Joanne Orlando, a researcher in digital behaviour, argues that while a ban “could be part of a strategy, it absolutely can’t be the whole strategy”.

She says “the biggest piece of the puzzle” should be educating kids to think critically about the content they see on their feeds and how they use social media.

The government has already spent A$6m since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” to try and do just that. However, research suggests that many young Australians aren’t receiving regular lessons.

Ms Orlando and other experts warn there are also significant hurdles to making the age-verification technology – which is required to enforce the ban – effective and safe, given the “enormous risks” associated with potentially housing the identification documents of every Australian online.

The government has said it is aiming to solve that challenge through age-verification trials, and hopes to table a report by mid-next year. It has promised that privacy concerns will be front and centre, but offered little detail on what kind of technology will actually be tested.

In its advice, the eSafety Commissioner has floated the idea of using a third-party service to anonymise a user’s ID before it is passed on to any age verification sites, to “preserve” their privacy.

However, Ms Orlando remains sceptical. “I can’t think of any technology that exists at this point that can pull this off,” she tells the BBC.

Australia is by no means the first country to try to restrict how young people access certain websites or platforms online.

In 2011, South Korea passed its “shutdown law” which prevented children under 16 from playing internet games between 22:30 and 6:00, but the rules – which faced backlash – were later scrapped citing the need to “respect the rights of youths”.

More recently France introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent. Research indicated almost half of users were able to circumvent the ban using a simple VPN.

A law in the US state of Utah – which was similar to Australia’s – ran into a different issue: it was blocked by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional.

Albanese has conceded that Australia’s proposal may not be foolproof, and if it passes the parliament, it would be subject to a review.

“We know that technology moves fast. No government is going to be able to protect every child from every threat – but we have to do all we can,” he said when announcing the measure.

But for parents like Emma and Ms Friedlander – who have lobbied for the changes – it’s the message that the ban sends which matters most.

“For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out socially,” Ms Friedlander says.

“We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”

James says that since quitting Snapchat he’s found himself spending more time outside with friends.

And he hopes that the new laws could enable more kids like him to “get out and do the things they love” instead of feeling pressured to be online.

A woman in Thailand has been sentenced to death in the first of a string of cases in which she is accused of murdering 14 friends with cyanide.

The court in Bangkok found Sararat Rangsiwuthaporn, 36, guilty of putting poison in a wealthy friend’s food and drink while they were on a trip last year.

Relatives of the friend refused to accept she died of natural causes and an autopsy found traces of cyanide in her body. Police arrested Sararat and uncovered other similar deaths going back to 2015. One person she allegedly targeted survived.

Police say Sararat, dubbed Am Cyanide by Thai media, had a gambling addiction and targeted friends she owed money to, then stole their jewellery and valuables.

Sararat travelled with her friend Siriporn Khanwong, 32, to Ratchaburi province, west of Bangkok in April 2023, where they took part in a Buddhist protection ritual at a river, police said.

Siriporn collapsed and died after a meal with Sararat, who made no effort to help her, investigators said.

Traces of cyanide were found in Siriporn’s body and her phone, money and bags were missing when she was found, police said.

“You got justice, my child. Today, there is justice in this world,” Siriporn’s mother, Thongpin Kiatchanasiri, said in front of the courtroom, as she held a photo of her daughter.

Thongpin said that out of anger, she could not stand to look at Sararat, who she said was smiling when the sentence was being read. Sararat pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.

Her former husband, an ex-police officer, and her lawyer, were handed prison terms of one year and four months, and two years respectively, for hiding evidence to help her evade prosecution. They had also pleaded not guilty before Wednesday’s sentencing.

The ex-husband, Vitoon Rangsiwuthaporn, gave himself up last year. Police said he most likely helped Sararat poison an ex-boyfriend, Suthisak Poonkwan.

Sararat was also ordered to pay Siriporn’s family two million baht ($57,667; £45,446) in compensation.

Cyanide starves the body’s cells of oxygen, which can induce heart attacks. Early symptoms include dizziness, shortness of breath and vomiting.

It can lead to lung injury, coma and death within seconds when consumed in large amounts, but even small doses can still be very harmful.

Its use in Thailand is heavily regulated and those found to have unauthorised access face up two years in jail.

High-tech equipment made by a UK firm worth $2.1m (£1.6m) has been sold to companies in Russia connected to the military, customs documents seen by BBC News suggest.

The documents indicate the British-made camera lenses were shipped by a company registered in Kyrgyzstan, apparently run by a swimwear model.

The UK manufacturer, Beck Optronic Solutions, which has worked on British Challenger 2 tanks and F35 fighter jets, told us it had not breached sanctions, had no dealings with Russia or Kyrgyzstan, and was unaware of the shipments.

Our investigation raises questions about the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on Russia since the war in Ukraine began.

The trail led us to Valeria Baigascina, a 25-year-old, originally from the central Asian state of Kazakhstan but now living in Belarus. A part-time model, she posts regularly about her jet-set lifestyle on social media. In the past two years she has visited Dubai, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

Her social media gave no indication she was also the director of a firm which had channelled millions of dollars’ worth of equipment to sanctioned companies in Russia, as our search of customs documents revealed.

According to Belarusian registration details, Ms Baigascina was the founder and director of a company called Rama Group LLC. Set up in February 2023, it is registered to an address in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan – 2,300 miles (3,713 km) from her home in Belarus.

Both countries are former Soviet states with strong trading links to Russia. Belarus remains Moscow’s strongest ally in Europe.

Trade data shows that since sanctions on Russia were introduced in February 2022, UK exports to Kyrgyzstan have increased by more than 300%. Experts suspect some goods are actually destined for Moscow.

The customs documents obtained by the BBC suggest that Rama Group made two shipments to Moscow of high-end optics that can be used in missiles, tanks and aircraft.

The equipment is listed on the customs form as being made by Beck Optronic Solutions in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The company manufactures high-precision lenses used in targeting and surveillance systems.

Though some of its lenses are used in healthcare and engineering, Beck’s website details extensive military and defence applications.

The lenses and optical technology sold by Beck Optronics are specifically listed as goods that either cannot be legally exported to Russia, or that need permission from UK authorities before any sale can take place.

The BBC has identified, through customs documents, a total of six shipments of products said to have been made by Beck with a total value of $2.1m (£1.6m) and transferred to Moscow through Rama and another intermediary company, Shisan LLC.

In December 2023 and January 2024, Rama Group made its two shipments to Moscow listing them as “rotating part of camera”. These shipments went to Sol Group, a company based in Smolensk, 200 miles (320km) south-west of Moscow, which has been sanctioned by the US.

It is not clear what international route the goods took – the documents indicate some of the shipments may actually have originated in Thailand.

Shisan LLC, another Kyrgyz company, was responsible for four further shipments of Beck Optronics’ products worth $1.5m (£1.1m).

Two of those shipments involved “short-wave infrared camera lens” and went to the Ural Optical & Mechanical Plant, which makes bomb-aiming equipment and is also sanctioned because of its links to the Russian military.

Rama Group and Shisan share the same address in Bishkek – a modern five-storey block in a prosperous part of the city. However, when we visited we were told Valeria Baigascina was out of the country on a business trip.

We found her number through her social media posts and put our allegations to her.

Ms Baigascina said she was the founder of the company but had sold it in May. She denied the allegations, saying that when she had owned it, “nothing like that was supplied”. She then hung up.

Later, by email, she told us the accusations were “ridiculous” and based on “false information”.

Our research shows that in May this year she sold Rama Group to her best friend, Angelina Zhurenko, who runs a lingerie business in Kazakhstan.

Ms Zhurenko told us: “Trading activities are carried out exclusively within the framework of the current legislation of Kyrgyzstan. The company does not violate any prohibitions. Any other information is false.”

The director of the other intermediary company, Shisan, is listed as Evgeniy Anatolyevich Matveev. We put our allegations to him by email.

He told us that our information was “false” and that he ran “a business supplying exclusively civilian goods manufactured in Asian countries”.

He continued: “This does not contradict the laws of the state in which I work, and has nothing to do with US sanctions, because it is impossible to prohibit free trade in Asian goods available for sale and delivery.”

There’s no evidence that Beck Optronics knew about these shipments or that the final destination of the lenses was Russia.

The company told us it had nothing to do with the shipments: “Beck has not shipped anything contrary to UK export controls or any sanctions applying in the UK. It has had no dealings with any party or company in Russia, Kyrgyzstan or Thailand, was not aware that any shipments might ultimately be destined for any of these destinations and has not shipped anything to these destinations.”

It believes some of the equipment listed wasn’t even made by the company and that customs documents may have been falsified.

But these alleged exports are part of a much bigger picture involving shipments from a number of sources.

Analysis of customs documents by the Washington-based security think tank C4ADS suggest that Shisan completed 373 shipments via Kyrgyzstan to Russia between July and December 2023.

Of these, 288 contained goods that fall under customs codes for “high-priority battlefield items”.

Over the same six-month period, Rama Group completed a total of 1,756 shipments to Russia. Of these, 1,355 were for items on the “high-priority battlefield items” list.

Its most recent shipments, including electronics by US and UK companies, went to a Russian company named Titan-Mikro, which has been subject to US sanctions since May 2023 for operating within Russia’s military sector.

“When they sell this technology to a client who is potentially a Russian end-user, they fully should understand that this is to kill people,” says Olena Tregub from NAKO, Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption organisation.

She warns that the holes in the sanctions regime are costing lives.

“Without those technologies, those weapons would not fly. The brain of those ballistic missiles, the brain of those kamikaze drones, are made of Western technology,” she says.

International authorities are aware of Kyrgyzstan’s role in sanctions evasion.

In April, UK’s foreign secretary at the time, David Cameron, travelled to Bishkek and urged the Kyrgyz authorities to do more to tighten their sanctions’ compliance.

The Kyrgyz president expressed confidence that Lord Cameron’s official visit to his country would “give new impetus to multifaceted co-operation between Kyrgyzstan and the UK”.

David O’Sullivan, the EU’s Special Envoy for the Implementation of Sanctions told us that efforts continue to shut down “illicit procurement networks”, and that “companies are required to undertake due diligence checks to understand who is the final end-user and where ‘battlefield items’ end up ultimately”.

In a matter of days US President Joe Biden’s administration and Russia have made separate – but significant – moves aimed at influencing the outcome of the war in Ukraine, two months ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

There is a sense of Moscow maximising its gains and of Biden abandoning long-held red lines before Trump seeks to deliver on his claim to end the war in 24 hours.

Ukraine has already acted on Biden’s decision to let Kyiv fire first long-range Atacms missiles deep into Russian territory. As Kyiv struggles to hold on to its territory in the east, Biden has promised to send anti-personnel landmines too as part of new military assistance worth nearly $300m (£239m).

What prompted Biden’s change of heart appears to have been the arrival of thousands of North Koreans deployed to the front line, which the US sees as a “massive escalation”.

But Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has ratcheted up the tension still further by loosening the conditions of use for Russia’s nuclear weapons. That “effectively eliminates” defeat on the battlefield, claims Moscow.

One Russia commentator suggested Putin might view the current situation as an “in-between” moment that gives him the sense he has the upper hand in Ukraine.

At the start of this week, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack on Ukraine for almost three months. Amid fears of a renewed strike on Wednesday, several Western embassies closed their doors.

“It’s all connected,” says Mykhaylo Samus, head of the New Geopolitics Research Network in Ukraine. He argues Russia has been stockpiling hundreds of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles for weeks to enable it to carry out strikes and thus send a psychological message ahead of the transfer of power in Washington DC.

Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, may have been spared on Wednesday, but the message got through.

“Everything is about preparing for a strong position for talks with Trump, to understand Russia is not going to make compromise and everything depends on [Ukraine’s President Volodymyr] Zelensky.”

“There’s clearly an effort ahead of Trump to maximise their standings,” agrees Jade McGlynn, from the war studies department at King’s College London. She is highly sceptical that a deal with Putin is possible – and that ultimately his aim is to subjugate Russia’s south-western neighbour.

Ukraine marked 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion on Tuesday with Russian forces waging relentless attacks in a bid to seize key hubs in the east of Ukraine.

The mood in Moscow appears to be that it is only a matter of time before Ukraine is in its hands, says Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

From January, however, Putin will have to consider other factors, she says: “He will have to deal with the fact that Trump now is responsible for the situation. If Putin escalates, it can worsen the chances for a deal. He will have to be more flexible, more open to different options.”

The Biden administration announced new military assistance for Ukraine to include ammunition, missiles and drones, as well as anti-personnel landmines.

The US leader’s decision to allow Kyiv to begin firing Atacms into Russian territory was clearly directed at helping Kyiv, but it was felt by the Trump entourage, too.

Although Trump has so far said nothing, his pick for National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, spoke of “another step up the escalation ladder and nobody knows where this is going”.

He did not go as far as some on the Trump team. Donald Trump Jr complained Biden was trying to “get World War Three” going before his father could even return to the White House.

“There’s one president at a time,” said state department spokesman Matthew Miller “When the next president takes office, he can make his own decisions.”

Some Republicans have backed Biden’s move, although Sen Lindsay Graham said he should have done it “to help Ukraine and he’s playing politics with it”.

Russia’s reaction may or may not be an empty threat.

Under its revised nuclear doctrine, Moscow will now be able to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries that are backed by nuclear powers, and if it comes under “massive” air attack, too.

Alexander Yermakov from the Russian International Affairs Council says the change is not so much as an operational manual for using nuclear weapons, but “primarily it serves as a declaration to potential adversaries, outlining the scenarios in which such measures could be considered”.

Another message from Putin to the West, then.

Tatiana Stanovaya believes it is not that he wants to start World War Three, but because “he believes he must scare the Western elites to show they are playing with fire”.

What happens beyond January is anyone’s guess.

Kremlin insiders have already begun briefing about their minimal demands from any Trump initiative to end the war, and Volodymyr Zelensky has begun making his position clear too.

Asked in a US TV interview what would happen to Ukraine if Washington slashed military aid, he was clear: “If they will cut, I think we will lose. Of course, anyway, we will stay and we will fight. We have production, but it’s not enough to prevail.”

Putin insists Ukraine will have to remain neutral for any relations to work, even though it is now part of Ukraine’s constitution to join both Nato and the European Union.

A Reuters news agency report on Wednesday cited Russian officials saying Putin might be open to pulling out from relatively small patches of territory but nothing bigger.

Zelensky on Tuesday presented his 10-point “resilience plan” to parliament, and one defiant message rang out in the Verkhovna Rada more than most.

“Maybe Ukraine will have to outlive someone in Moscow in order to achieve all its goals… to restore the full integrity of Ukraine.”

One day Russia would be without Putin, in other words, but Ukraine would be going nowhere.

For Ukrainians that wait could take years, says Mykhaylo Samus, but they would never consent to abandoning Crimea or any other territory under Russian occupation.

The most Zelensky might be prepared to sign would be a ceasefire without commitments, he believes. Anything else would lead to internal conflict as many would view it as a betrayal.

Ahead of any talks Mykola Bielieskov of the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv believes the key is to prevent any major Russian breakthrough in the east.

“For us it’s just necessary to localise [Russian] advances… using Atacms, anti-personnel landmines or whatever. Because if the Russians are successful they would try to dictate terms.”

Speaking to the BBC from Kharkiv, Jade McGlynn said few Ukrainians believed Trump would be able to engineer any kind of lasting peace deal.

Any kind of settlement that left Ukraine in a much worse position would lead to political chaos, she said.

“Europe needs to step up,” she said, “and ultimately we know that the Scandinavians, Baltic states and Poland are not enough.”

A 43-year-old man was fatally shot by police in Las Vegas after he called 911 for help while fighting off an intruder in his home.

The family of Brandon Durham, including his 15-year-old daughter who was hiding in a nearby room, have asked for the officer to be fired.

Mr Durham’s teenage daughter said she was “disgusted” with Las Vegas police as they treated him like “the suspect” not “the victim”.

A lawyer for Alexander Bookman, the officer who shot Mr Durham, said he committed no crimes.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said Mr Bookman, 26, had been placed on paid administrative leave while they conduct an internal review of the 12 November incident.

Mr Durham had called 911 to report that two people were shooting outside and were trying to break into his home, police said.

Officers responding to the report found cars with broken windows outside.

They also noticed damage to the house and heard shouting from inside, police said, prompting Mr Bookman to kick down the front door to enter.

Body camera footage released by the police shows Mr Bookman walking through the home with his gun drawn, while screaming and banging can be heard out of view.

• Video shows Illinois police fatally shoot woman in her home

Turning the corner of an L-shaped hallway, the officer finds a shirtless Mr Durham wrestling over a knife with a woman wearing a ski mask, later identified as 31-year-old Alejandra Boudreaux.

Mr Bookman yells, “hey, drop the knife, drop the knife”, seconds before firing a shot that hit Mr Durham and sent him and Ms Boudreaux to the ground.

Mr Bookman then fires five more shots at Mr Durham and says “put your hands up”, body-worn camera footage released by police showed.

Mr Durham was pronounced dead at the scene. Ms Boudreaux was arrested and charged with four counts, including home invasion with a deadly weapon.

“I am disgusted in how the Metropolitan Police told my father, after killing him, to stay down,” Mr Durham’s daughter told local news. “I’m disgusted that the Metropolitan Police will allow me to live fatherless for the rest of my life.”

The family’s lawyer has asked for an immediate arrest warrant for Mr Bookman.

“Unlike a civil case, in which an individual’s negligence is at issue, criminal cases require proof of a person’s criminal intent,” David Roger, general counsel for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said in a statement to CNN. “While Mr. Durham’s death is tragic, Officer Bookman was doing his job and did not intend to commit a crime.”

Citing a police report, local news outlets said Mr Durham and Ms Boudreaux were previously in a romantic relationship.

Assistant Sheriff Dori Koren said police did not find a gun on the scene, despite multiple reports of shots fired.

The incident brought police shootings back into the spotlight, occurring just days before the justice department opened an investigation into the death of Sonya Massey, who was fatally shot in July by an officer inside her home in Illinois.

They’ve sold more albums than any other K-pop girl band last year, have tens of millions of fans worldwide and are arguably one of South Korea’s hottest acts.

What the members of NewJeans aren’t however, are workers, according to the government.

The country’s Ministry of Employment and Labor on Wednesday dismissed claims of workplace harrassment against a member of the group, saying celebrities were not seen as workers under the country’s labour law – and were therefore not entitled to the same rights.

The decision has drawn its fair share of scorn – and unsurprise – with some saying it is just the latest to come from an industry known for its punishing schedules and intense competition.

This is the latest scandal to hit NewJeans, which has for months been embroiled in a public feud with its record label, Ador.

With slick pop songs like Super Shy, OMG and Supernatural, NewJeans were the eighth biggest-selling act in the world last year, and were nominated for best group at this year’s MTV Awards.

Formed by label Ador in 2022, the group has five members – Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein – whose ages range from 16 to 20.

The incident started after 20-year-old Hanni and the other four members of the band raised concerns about their treatment by Ador during an impromptu YouTube livestream on 11 September.

In the band’s YouTube video, which has since been deleted, they made claims of workplace harassment, among others, which culminated in Hanni saying she would testify in a hearing about bullying in the music industry.

The Vietnamese-Australian singer, whose real name is Pham Ngoc Han, told lawmakers that she felt “the company hated us”.

She described how senior members of Hybe ignored her and her bandmates, and gave them cold shoulder. She also alleged that employees of the agency bad-mouthed NewJeans on internal communication app and asked a journalist to downplay the group’s record sales in one article.

Hybe had previously denied the accusations. The CEO of Ador, which is a subsidiary of Hybe, said at the hearing that she would “listen more closely” to her artists.

Her allegations prompted fans to file a petition about workplace bullying to the government.

But on Wednesday, South Korea’s labour ministry rejected these claims, saying given the content and nature of the management contract signed by Hanni, she is not regarded as a worker under the country’s Labour Standards Act.

“Individuals must meet the criteria under the Labour Standards Act… to be considered workers. This includes having fixed working hours and providing labour under the employer’s direct supervision and control. Celebrities, including singers, are typically classified as independent contractors,” Chunghwan Choi, senior partner of Yulchon law firm in Seoul explained.

The government also cites the nature of Hanni’s income, which is deemed to be “profit sharing, rather than wages”, according to local reports, adding that she pays business income tax rather than employment income tax.

One expert has called the response “utterly unfair and yet unsurprising”.

The work for K-pop idols is “emotionally and physically exhausting”, according to her, as they work “incredibly long hours, often seven days a week for months in a row…[with] no clearly defined periods of rest”, says CedarBough Saeji, Assistant Professor of Korean and East Asian Studies at Pusan National University in South Korea.

“Exploitation of the workers is accepted because they are not regular employees and there is no labour union, or clearly we can now see, no governmental agency to advocate for humane working conditions for them,” she argues.

There are currently no specific laws in South Korea that provide protections for the working rights of celebrities or artists, says Mr Choi, saying that this “underscores the urgent need for reforms to address longstanding issues in the entertainment industry”.

One measure that could be put into place to safeguard the working rights of artists is something similar to the Talent Agency Act in Hollywood, which requires talent agencies to obtain licenses and prohibits unfair or exploitative contracts, adds Mr Choi.

However, he adds that “while there have been discussions about implementing laws similar to the Talent Agency Act, no such legislation has been enacted yet”.

On Wednesday, New Jeans fans rallied under the hashtag “IdolsAreWorkers” in support of the band.

Others pointed out that the decision had a legal basis, as celebrities were not technically seen as workers under the law, but called for greater reforms in the industry.

“I get what they’re saying about the role not qualifying for the legal defintion of workplace harrassment, but this just shows the need for reform in the K-pop industry”, said one user on X.

Hanni has yet to comment on the government’s decision.

Hybe, which represents massive K-pop groups such as BTS and Seventeen, is South Korea’s largest music firm.

South Korea’s entertainment industry is known for its high-pressure environment, where celebrities are held to strict standards over their appearances and behaviour.

Australia’s debate over capping foreign student numbers is “not over” despite a controversial bill unexpectedly losing support, a top industry body says.

The bill, part of efforts to slash overall migration to Australia, had been opposed by most universities who say it would damage the higher education sector and its global reputation.

The government argued the legislation was needed to make the industry more sustainable and ease pressure on housing, and it was expected to easily pass with opposition support this week.

However in a surprise eleventh-hour move, Australia’s opposition leader said his coalition would vote against the bill as it didn’t go far enough.

Though some universities have expressed support at the bill’s apparent demise, they also say it extends the uncertainty surrounding the industry – which is worth about A$50bn (£25.7bn, $32.7bn) to the economy.

Luke Sheehy, head of Universities Australia, told the BBC the news brought “no sense of relief” for him.

“I just knew that we would be looking at international students [used] as cannon fodder in a phoney war on migration right through to the election now,” said Mr Sheehy, whose organisation advocates for 39 universities.

The cap proposed limiting new enrolments at 270,000 for 2025 – a significant cut on the number in 2024. It had been due to come into effect in just six weeks.

Some universities have made job cuts and rejected student applications in anticipation of the new laws, and the BBC was told foreign students were already choosing to study elsewhere as a result of the reduced confidence in the sector.

The legislation, currently before the Senate, has not been formally withdrawn by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government but it cannot pass without the support of the main opposition Liberal-National coalition or the Greens, who also oppose it.

Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton called the bill “a dog’s breakfast” and vowed to introduce “deeper cuts” if he wins the upcoming election, due by May.

The Greens, on the other hand, described the bill “dog whistling that shamefully scapegoated international students for the housing crisis they did not cause”.

The government has accused Mr Dutton of hypocrisy, arguing he has often talked “tough” on cutting immigration to the country, which has reached record levels in recent years.

The expected failure of the bill would mean an existing visa policy, which has been widely accused of exacerbating problems by funnelling most international students to a select few city-based universities, will remain in place.

The Group of Eight (Go8) – a body which represents Australia’s top ranked universities – said the bill would have hurt students and staff and that common sense had prevailed.

But the industry has been left scrambling again, with only a few months left until the 2025 academic year begins. Observers say some universities could now receive a spike in students when they had a expected a cut, and others – predominantly in regional locations – will no longer expect as many, putting them under greater financial pressure.

“The most devastating part of this discussion is that we still don’t have a resolution,” Mr Sheehy said.

“We’re nowhere closer to providing the certainty, stability and growth the government promised us all those many months ago when they proposed caps.”

The Border-Gavaskar Test series between Australia and India, which starts in Perth on Friday, pits the two best teams in red-ball cricket against each other.

The last four series between these two countries have been compelling, making it the pre-eminent rivalry in Test cricket today. This period has been particularly good for India, who have won the rubber on all four occasions, including twice in succession in Australia.

But India’s unexpected recent whitewash by New Zealand, marked by the failure of top stars, has raised doubts about the future of some big names.

The spotlight in the current series will be on veterans Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja, who have been the pillars of India’s dominance across formats over the past decade. However, with advancing age and recent dips in form, questions linger about their ability and hunger to continue competing at the highest level.

The most concerning issue has been the form of star batter Virat Kohli, the poster boy of Indian cricket.

His recent struggles have stretched over more than three years. In the past five years, Kohli, who once piled up Test centuries with ease, has managed to add only two more to the 27 he had amassed earlier at a rapid pace.

His Test batting average, once hovering in the mid-50s, has dipped below 48. The run machine who was touted as most likely to overhaul Sachin Tendulkar’s Test records has been sputtering.

Australia has long been a happy hunting ground for Kohli. His first Test century came in Adelaide in 2011, and during the 2014-15 series, he dazzled with almost magical strokeplay, cementing his place among the game’s greats.

Kohli’s fiery aggression – outdoing even the Aussies at their own game – earned him respect and adoration from fans Down Under. When he led India to their historic first Test series victory in Australia in 70 years, he assumed cult status.

Captain Rohit Sharma, a late bloomer in Test cricket, may have had comparatively modest success in the format, but the respect he commands from opponents is every bit as significant as that given to Kohli.

After starting with centuries in his first two Tests, Sharma lost his way and place, briefly, till he was given the opener’s slot. Since then he hasn’t looked back.

Sharma’s prowess in white-ball cricket has often overshadowed his superlative batting in Tests, where he can be destructive and sublime as the situation demands.

He often faces criticism for his inconsistency in producing big scores. However, there’s unanimous agreement that when Sharma finds his rhythm, India’s chances of winning Tests soar dramatically.

While Sharma hasn’t had a prolonged lean trot like Kohli, he has unfortunately hit a dramatic slump in the recent home Tests against Bangladesh and New Zealand.

In 10 innings each during these matches, neither Sharma nor Kohli managed to muster even 200 runs. The calibre and class of Sharma and Kohli are beyond dispute. The concern is whether they are over the hill.

Ashwin and Jadeja are undoubtedly world-class all-rounders. With more than 3,000 runs apiece, Ashwin has surpassed 500 Test wickets, while Jadeja recently crossed the 300-mark. Both would be welcomed with open arms into any team in the world.

In tandem, they’ve more often than not played havoc with opposing teams though their overseas record is modest.

In 10 Tests in Australia, Ashwin has taken 39 wickets at an average of 42.15. Meanwhile, Jadeja has claimed 14 wickets in just four Tests at an impressive average of 21.78 – better than Ashwin’s, though from a smaller sample size.

But such stats can also be misleading.

Ashwin is the more experimental of the two, adding an element of surprise and edge to his bowling. In 2021, he had Australia’s top batsmen, Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne, dancing to his tune. Jadeja, on the other hand, is the master of control – economical and deadly, especially on a crumbling pitch.

The value of Ashwin and Jadeja extends beyond just their bowling. Ashwin’s doughty batting in the memorable 2021 series was critical in India winning the series. Jadeja has often shored up the batting with stout defence and spunky strokes when the top order has fallen. And he is worth 30-35 runs on fielding alone.

The concerns about Ashwin and Jadeja stem from their relatively modest bowling returns against New Zealand at home last month. Ashwin took nine wickets at a strike rate of 66.33, while Jadeja claimed 16 wickets at 37.93.

Effectively, the Kiwi spinners outshone both these stalwarts, and India lost a home series after 18 Test wins. As in the case of Sharma and Kohli, was this an aberration or a sign of waning powers?

It would be reckless to dismiss players of such high calibre and vast experience based on a handful of stats. Beyond their skill and ambition, great players rely on self-belief and pride to overcome the toughest challenges and deliver when it matters most.

However, as they approach the winter of their careers, how these outstanding players perform in the current series is crucial – both for the team and for themselves.

Success here will signal a resurgence, helping them fend off stiff competition from a wave of exceptionally talented young players. On the other hand, failure will only intensify calls for a broader transition in Indian cricket.

A congressional ethics committee has failed to reach an agreement over whether to release a report on alleged sexual misconduct by Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the US Department of Justice.

The House committee met for two hours behind closed doors on Wednesday, as calls grew for details of its investigation into Gaetz, a former Florida congressman whose nomination to serve as attorney general has proved controversial.

“There was no consensus on this issue,” Democratic Representative Susan Wild told reporters, adding that a vote had been taken but the bipartisan committee remained split along party lines.

She said they would meet again on 5 December. It is unclear whether they could release the report into Gaetz, who denies any wrongdoing, before then.

Pressure has mounted on the ethics committee to release its findings, as members of the Senate begin meeting with Gaetz ahead of a hearing when they will vote on whether to confirm him as attorney general.

“They’ve been going great,” Gaetz said of the meetings on Wednesday. “Senators been giving me a lot of good advice. I’m looking forward to a hearing.”

The ethics committee had been preparing to vote on the report’s release before Gaetz’s abrupt resignation from the House, which came just after Trump’s nomination, the New York Times reported.

His departure cast doubt on whether the report would see the light of day, because having resigned he is no longer under congressional jurisdiction and the committee only investigates House members.

The committee Chairman Michael Guest, a Republican, told reporters on Wednesday that he had “some reservations” about releasing the report because it is still going through the review process.

He told CNN the committee would consider releasing it publicly or sending it directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it remains uncertain whether it will leave the committee at all.

Reporters and members of the media packed the hallway outside the room where members of the committee met on Wednesday. Most lawmakers remained tight-lipped as they passed the gauntlet of journalists on their way out of the meeting.

Speaking to MSNBC afterward, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, a Democrat, said he had faith “we will get to the right solution”.

Gaetz, 42, is a lawyer who made a name for himself on Capitol Hill and cable news as a right-wing rabble rouser. He is a staunch defender of Trump and led a successful effort to oust Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last year.

Some of Gaetz’s former House colleagues have voiced support for his nomination, including Speaker Mike Johnson, who called him a “reformer” who would “bring a lot to the table”.

But Gaetz also has been dogged by allegations of impropriety in recent years.

The US justice department previously investigated him for allegations he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and violated sex trafficking laws. But the case was dropped and Gaetz, who denied the allegations, was never charged.

• What to know about the Gaetz allegations
• Trump picking Gaetz to head justice sends shockwaves – and a strong message
• Who else is in Trump’s top team?

In June, the ethics committee announced it was investigating several allegations against Gaetz, including that he “engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favours to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct”.

Two women testified to the committee that Gaetz paid them “for sex”, their lawyer, Joel Leppard, told CBS this week. One of the women also testified that she witnessed the then-congressman having sex with a minor during a party in 2017, the lawyer said.

Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and says the accusations are politically motivated.

“Lies were weaponised to try to destroy me,” Gaetz posted on X on Friday. “These lies resulted in prosecution, conviction, and prison. For the liars, not me.”

Trump showed no sign of backing down on his cabinet pick this week.

“Matt Gaetz will be the next attorney general. He’s the right man for the job and will end the weaponisation of our justice system,” Trump transition spokesman Alex Pfieffer said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Senators of both parties have spoken in favour of accessing the ethics report.

Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanded that the other committee “preserve and share” the report with his panel.

“Make no mistake: This information could be relevant to the question of Mr Gaetz’s confirmation as the next attorney general of the United States, and our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent,” Durbin said.

Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who also sits on the judiciary committee, said: “I think that if they want a speedy consideration of this nomination, we’ve got to have as much transparency as we can have.”

• How these new recruits will be vetted
• What Trump can and can’t do on day one
• What to know about Gaetz allegations
• Fact-checking RFK’s views on health policy
• What Trump picks say about Mid East policy

North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher makes sense of the presidential election in his twice weekly US Election Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Winter has come to Delhi and with it, a familiar sense of gloom. The sky here is grey and there is a thick, visible blanket of smog.

If you stay outdoors for more than a few minutes, you can almost taste ash. You will feel breathless within minutes if you try to run or even walk at a brisk pace in the smog.

Newspapers are back to using words like “toxic”, “deadly” and “poisonous” in their main headlines.

Most schools have been shut and people have been advised to stay indoors – though those whose livelihoods depend on working outdoors can’t afford to do so.

Delhi’s air quality score was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 on Monday and Tuesday, according to different monitoring agencies. The acceptable limit is under than 100.

These scores measure the levels of particulate matter – called PM 2.5 and PM10 – in the air. These tiny particles can enter the lungs and cause a host of diseases.

On social media, people have been expressing shock, disappointment and anguish that it’s all happening again.

Along with the gloom, there is a strong sense of déjà vu – like we have seen this all many times before in the past 15 years.

I recorded this video of my drive to the office in 2017, when smog had reduced visibility to less than 2m.

On Tuesday, my drive to the office seemed even worse.

And we have covered every twist and turn of this story in the past two decades.

We have reported how pollution is making people sick and reducing their life expectancy reducing their life expectancy.

We have reported on India’s Supreme Court ordering the government to take urgent steps to curb pollution every year. The court has done the same this year.

We have reported on how pollution affects children the most.

We have written about how politicians blame each other for the problem every year.

We have discussed the root cause of the problem.

We have also talked about solutions – both the ones that marginally worked and the ones that failed miserably.

We have reported on how pollution affects the poorest the most and how many don’t have a choice but to go out and work in the smog.

Covering this story feels like watching (and being in) the same dystopian film every year – following the same characters, plot and script. The outcome is always the same – nothing changes.

The parks are empty again – people, particularly children and the elderly, have been told to stay indoors.

Those who must work – daily-wage labourers, rickshaw pullers, delivery riders – are coughing but still going out.

Hospitals are seeing an increasing number of people coming in with respiratory problems.

And amid all this, we are back to the same question again – why does nothing change?

The simple answer is that solving Delhi’s air problem requires monumental efforts and co-ordination.

The sources of the problem are many. One of them is the practice of farmers burning crop remains to clear their fields quickly to sow seeds for the next yield.

This mostly happens in the neighbouring states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The smoke from the farm fires engulfs Delhi every winter and hangs low in the atmosphere as wind speeds reduce during winter months.

But farmers can’t be entirely blamed for this because this is the cheapest way of clearing fields.

Different governments have talked about providing machines and financial incentives to stop crop burning, but very little has happened on the ground.

Delhi itself produces a huge chunk of the pollution – emission from vehicles, construction and factories.

Every year, in the winter months, people get angry, journalists write and produce reports, politicians blame each other and courts fume – until we do it all over again the next year.

A public health emergency like this would spark mass protests in most democracies. But the anger in Delhi is mostly limited to social media.

Activists say the reason is that pollution doesn’t cause immediate problems for most people. Ingesting high levels of PM2.5 causes health to deteriorate slowly. A Lancet study found that pollution led to more than 2.3 million premature deaths in India in 2019.

And then there is the class divide. People who can afford to temporarily leave the city do that, those who can buy air purifiers do that, and those who can vent on social media do that.

The rest, who don’t have these options, just go about their lives.

The collective angst has so far not resulted in a massive protest and, as the Supreme Court once observed, politicians just “pass the buck” and wait for the season to get over.

Experts say governments at the federal level and in different states need to leave their party politics behind and work together to solve this problem. They need to focus on long-term solutions.

And citizens need to hold politicians accountable and courts have to pass decisive orders months before the pollution worsens.

This year, we are again in the thick of the season and temporary measures have been announced, like banning construction work.

But can these bring Delhi’s elusive blue skies back? The evidence from the past few years doesn’t give much hope.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Texas authorities say they are prepared to offer President-elect Donald Trump 1,400-acres (567 hectares) of land along the US-Mexico border to build detention facilities for undocumented migrants.

In a letter, the Texas General Land Office said the plot could be used to build facilities for “processing, detention, and co-ordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history”.

Trump has repeatedly pledged to deport millions of undocumented migrants and mobilise the National Guard to help carry this out.

His plan, however, is likely to face enormous financial and logistics hurdles, as well as immediate legal challenges from rights groups.

The letter, published online and sent to Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, notes that the owner of the recently purchased land had refused to allow a border wall to be built there and “actively blocked law enforcement” from accessing it.

“Now it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We can very easily put a detention centre on there,” Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham said in an interview with Fox News, which first reported the offer.

The state government in Texas, which launched its own unilateral border security operation after Trump left office, has been broadly supportive of Trump’s promises to strengthen the US-Mexico border.

Buckingham said she was “100% on board with the Trump administration’s pledge to get these criminals out of our country”.

But the Democratic governors of three other southern border states – California, Arizona, and New Mexico – have said they will not aid mass deportations.

“Local and state officials on the frontlines of the Harris-Biden border invasion have been suffering for four years and are eager for President Trump to return to the Oval Office,” Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

“President Trump will marshal every lever of power to secure the border, protect their communities, and launch the largest mass deportation operation of illegal immigrant criminals in history.”

What any new detention facilities would look like is unclear, although the incoming “border czar” Tom Homan has suggested they could be “soft-sided”.

Facilities currently in use range from soft-sided, camp-like facilities used by Customs and Border Patrol to house undocumented migrants for short periods of time, as well as brick-and-mortar buildings used by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

County and state jails are also used, for which local jurisdictions receive compensation from immigration authorities.

Stephen Miller, the top Trump adviser on immigration who has been picked as deputy chief of staff for policy, has previously said the Trump administration would build vast holding facilities to serve as staging centres for mass deportations.

In a late 2023 interview with the New York Times, Miller said that the facilities would likely be built on open land near Texas’ border with Mexico.

A 2024 spending bill signed by President Joe Biden allocated $3.4m (£2.69m) for ICE to house as many as 41,500 on any given day.

“If Trump conducts mass deportations, ICE would blow past that number very quickly,” Adam Isacson, a migration and border expert from the Washington Office on Latin America told the BBC.

ICE data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that there were 38,863 immigrant detainees being held as of 2 November.

The largest number – just over 12,000 – are held at facilities located in Texas.

News of Texas’ offer to the president-elect comes as Democratic-run cities and states have vowed to not co-operate with Trump’s promises of mass deportations.

On Tuesday, for example, Los Angeles’ city council passed a “sanctuary city” ordinance to bar using local resources to help federal immigration authorities.

Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, said that the fact that Republican-led states are more likely to co-operate with the Trump administration’s immigration goals could create a “patchwork of protections” that differ widely across the country.

“We might see the divide between red and blue states widen,” she said.

Ms Bush-Joseph added that additional facilities in Texas could also mean that undocumented migrants detained in the US interior could ultimately be moved and processed there.

“If you’re picking up people in blue states, and they don’t have detention facilities available, then do you try to move them to red states?” she asked. “That’s the question.””

BBC Radio 1’s Sound of 2025 longlist has been announced, with breakout stars like Chappell Roan and Barry Can’t Swim joined by newcomers including Myles Smith and Good Neighbours.

The award is given to rising artists with “the best chance of mainstream success” in the next 12 months. Past winners include Adele, Sam Smith, Michael Kiwanuka, PinkPantheress and Haim.

Last year’s winners, The Last Dinner Party, went on to score a number one album and a Mercury Prize nomination for their debut release, Prelude To Ecstasy.

This year’s longlist also includes indie band English Teacher and Northern Irish rap act Kneecap. The winner will be announced on BBC Radio 1 and BBC News in January.

The 11 acts in the running are:

• Barry Can’t Swim
• Chappell Roan
• Confidence Man
• Doechii
• English Teacher
• Ezra Collective
• Good Neighbours
• KNEECAP
• mk.gee
• Myles Smith
• Pozer

The nominees were chosen by a panel of more than 180 music industry experts and artists including representatives from Spotify, the Glastonbury Festival and the BBC; as well as musicians such as Sir Elton John, Dua Lipa, Jorja Smith, The Blessed Madonna and Sam Smith.

US pop star Chapell Roan is the clear frontrunner, after an electrifying year that saw her go from Olivia Rodrigo’s backing vocalist to breakout pop star.

Rejecting the trend for whispery bedroom pop, her songs are full of cheerleader chants and exuberant hooks that document her coming of age and the discovery of her sexuality.

Last week, she was nominated for six Grammy Awards, including best new artist and album of the year, for her debut The Rise And Fall Of A Midwest Princess.

• Find out more about this year’s artists
• The pundits who voted in the poll

Also hotly-tipped are London jazz ensemble Ezra Collective, who won the Mercury Prize in 2023 for their soulful and ebullient album Where I’m Meant To Be.

This year’s follow-up – tited Dance, No One’s Watching – is both an invitation and an invocation, with supple funk grooves that propelled the album into the top 10.

Shape-shifting rapper Doechii also makes the list, cementing her rise as one of hip-hop’s brightest new voices.

Born in Florida, she rose to attention with the viral 2021 hit Yucky Blucky Fruitcake, after which she toured with SZA and Doja Cat.

She is also nominated for the best new artist Grammy, and her recent mixtape Alligator Bites Don’t Heal was called “one of the year’s very best albums” by Rolling Stone.

Making a very different brand of hip-hop are Kneecap, who rap in both English and Irish about the aftermath of the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland.

The trio, who use the stage names Mo Chara, Móglaí Bap and DJ Próvaí, released their second album earlier this year alongside a “mostly true” movie depicting their origin story.

Representing London’s rap scene is Croydon-born Pozer, whose debut single Kitchen Stove has been streamed more than 30 million times on Spotify since February.

After a period when solo artists were in the ascendance, this year’s longlist has a healthy showing for bands, who occupy five of the 11 spots.

They include UK pop-rock duo Good Neighbours, who tap into a rich vein of feelgood nostalgia on tracks like Home and Daisies; and Australian electro-pop outfit Confidence Man, already known for their theatrically-choreographed (and fantastically fun) stage shows.

There’s a second Mercury Prize winner on the list in the shape of Leeds band Englilsh Teacher.

Combining art-rock angularity with biting social satire, their debut album This Could Be Texas was called “one of the finest debuts of the decade” by indie publication The Line Of Best Fit.

Edinburgh producer Barry Can’t Swim also makes the longlist, following a summer of huge festival appearances that saw crowds swoon to his upbeat, elegaic brand of dance music.

The list is completed by rising singer-songwriter Myles Smith, who scored a top 10 hit with the gospel-infused pop hit Stargazing earlier this year; and US guitar prodigy Mk.gee (pronounced “ma-ghee”), whose debut album Two Star & The Dream Police has quietly become a word of mouth success.

Now in its 23rd year, the Sound Of list has tipped everyone from Stormzy and Dua Lipa to Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga for success.

This year’s nominees may be more recognisable than previous acts were at this stage in their careers.

That’s down to a change in the eligibility criteria that recognises the difficulties of achieving crossover success in the streaming era.

To qualify, artists could not have had more than two UK top 10 albums or two UK top 10 singles by 30 September 2024.

The winner will be announced in the New Year, with the top five revealed in reverse order between Monday 6 and Friday 10 January.

Radio 1 will also host a special concert with performances from artists on the longlist on Monday 2 December.

The application for tickets is now open on the BBC Shows and Tours website.

The concert will be hosted by Sian Eleri and Jack Saunders, who said the 2025 longlist was “one of the strongest in a while”.

“It’s a reflection of the freedom artists are feeling creatively at the moment. Can’t wait to see who the top five are!”

A decade ago, it seemed as though the global nuclear industry was in an irreversible decline.

Concerns over safety, cost, and what to do with radioactive waste had sapped enthusiasm for a technology once seen as a revolutionary source of abundant cheap energy.

Yet now there is widespread talk of a revival, fuelled by tech giants Microsoft, Google and Amazon all announcing investments in the sector, as well as the growing pressures on wealthy nations to curb their carbon emissions.

But how real is the comeback?

When commercial nuclear power was first developed in the 1950s and 1960s, governments were seduced by its seemingly unlimited potential.

Nuclear reactors could harness and control the same awesome forces released by atomic bombs – to provide electricity for millions of homes. With a single kilogram of uranium yielding some 20,000 times as much energy as a kilogram of coal, it seemed like the future.

But the technology also inspired public fear. And that fear seemed to be justified by the Chernobyl disaster, which spread radioactive contamination across Europe in early 1986.

It fuelled widespread public and political opposition – and slowed the growth of the industry.

Another accident, at the Fukushima Daichi plant in Japan in 2011, re-energised concerns about nuclear safety. Japan itself shut down all of its reactors in the immediate aftermath, and only 12 have since restarted.

Germany decided to phase out nuclear power altogether. Other countries scaled back plans to invest in new power plants, or extend the lives of ageing facilities.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, this led to the loss of 48GW of electric power generation globally between 2011 and 2020.

But nuclear development did not stop. In China, for example, there were 13 nuclear reactors in 2011. There are now 55, with another 23 under construction.

For Beijing, scrambling to meet rapidly growing electricity demand, nuclear had, and still has, a vital role to play.

Now interest in the sector seems to be growing elsewhere once again. This is partly because developed countries are hunting for ways to meet energy demand, while striving to meet emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

With 2024 projected to be the warmest year on record, the pressure to cut carbon emissions is mounting. A renewed focus on energy security, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has also been a factor.

South Korea, for example, recently scrapped plans to phase out its large fleet of nuclear power stations over the next four decades – and will build more instead.

And France has reversed plans to reduce its own reliance on nuclear energy, which provides 70% of its electricity. Instead, it wants to build up to eight new reactors.

In addition, last week the US government reaffirmed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or Cop29, held in Azerbaijan, that it intends to triple nuclear power generation by 2050.

The White House had originally pledged to do this on the side lines of last year’s conference, Cop28. A total of 31 countries have now agreed to try to triple their use of nuclear power by 2050, including the UK, France and Japan.

Also at Cop29, which ends on Friday, 22 November, the US and UK announced that they would collaborate to speed up the development of new nuclear power technology.

This follows after it was agreed in the final statement or “stocktake” of last year’s Cop28 that nuclear should be one of the zero or low emission technologies to be “accelerated” to help combat climate change.

But hunger for clean power is not just coming from governments. Technology giants are striving to develop more and more applications that use artificial intelligence.

Yet AI relies on data – and data centres need constant, reliable electricity. According to Barclays Research, data centres account for 3.5% of electricity consumption in the US today, but that figure could rise to more than 9% by the end of the decade.

In September, Microsoft signed a 20-year deal to buy power from Constellation Energy, which will lead to the reopening of the infamous Three Mile Island power station in Pennsylvania – the site of the worst nuclear accident in US history, where a reactor suffered a partial meltdown in 1979.

Despite its tainted public image, another reactor at the plant continued to generate electricity until 2019. Constellation’s chief executive Joe Dominguez described the deal to reopen it as a “powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy resource”.

Other tech giants have taken a different approach. Google plans to buy energy produced from a handful of so-called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs – a nascent technology intended to make nuclear energy easier and cheaper to deploy. Amazon is also supporting SMR development and construction.

SMRs themselves are being promoted, in part, as a solution to one of the biggest drawbacks facing nuclear power today. In western nations, new power stations have to be built to exacting modern safety standards. This makes them prohibitively expensive and complicated to build.

Hinkley Point C is a good example. Britain’s first new nuclear power station since the mid-1990s is being built on a stretch of remote coastline in southwest England.

It is meant to be the first of a batch of new plants to replace the country’s ageing reactor fleet. But the project is running some five years behind schedule and will cost up to £9bn ($11.5bn) more than planned.

It is not an isolated case. The US’s newest reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia opened seven years late, and cost more than $35bn – well over double their original budget.

SMRs are designed to solve this problem. They will be smaller than traditional reactors, using standardised parts that can be assembled quickly, at sites close to where the power is needed.

But while there are some 80 different designs under development globally, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the concept has yet to be proven commercially.

Opinions about nuclear power remain highly polarised. Supporters claim the technology is indispensable if climate targets are to be reached. Among them is Rod Adams, whose Nucleation Capital fund promotes investment in nuclear technology.

“Nuclear fission has a seven-decade history showing it is one of the safest power sources available,” he explains.

“It is a durable, reliable source of power with low ongoing costs already, but capital costs have been too high in Western countries.”

Opponents though, insist nuclear power is not the answer.

According to Professor M.V. Ramana of the University of British Columbia, it is “a folly to consider nuclear energy as clean”. It is, he says, “one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. Investing in cheaper low-carbon sources of energy will provide more emissions reductions per dollar.”

If current trends do herald a new nuclear age, one old problem remains. After 70 years of atomic power, there is still disagreement over what to do with the accumulated radioactive waste – some of which will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.

The answer being pursued by many governments is geological disposal – burying the waste in sealed tunnels deep underground. But only one country, Finland, has actually built such a facility, while environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners argue that dumping waste out of sight and out of mind is simply too risky.

Solving that conundrum may be a key factor in dictating whether there really will be a new age of nuclear power.

India’s forthcoming cricket tour of Australia continues a historic rivalry that has evolved since 1947-48. This fierce competition is now as keenly awaited as the Ashes. But the inaugural tour unfolded against the harrowing backdrop of India’s independence and partition, with cricketers confronting turmoil and communal strife at home, as they prepared to face Australia’s legendary Donald Bradman and his “Invincibles”.

In 1947, as India prepared for its first cricket tour of Australia, the nation was in the midst of unprecedented upheaval.

Independence had come with the painful partition that created Pakistan, sparking one of history’s largest and bloodiest migrations. Amidst this chaos and as millions crossed borders, religious violence spread with Hindus and Sikhs on one side, and Muslims on the other. India’s 16-member cricket squad – selected months earlier – also had to deal with both personal and national turmoil as they readied themselves for a landmark series.

Anthony De Mello, the president of Board of Control for Cricket in India, announced the team with a backdrop of a map of undivided India, proclaiming that the team would represent all of India.

Until then, the Indian cricket team – known as “All India” – had only toured three times for official Test matches to England between 1932 and 1946, losing the series on every occasion.

But in 1946 future Australian captain Lindsay Hassett brought an Australian Services team to India to celebrate the Allies’ victory in World War Two. India won the unofficial series of three matches 1-0 and Hassett reported back to the Australian cricket authorities that the Indians were worthy of an official Test series.

Excitement and anticipation ran high in Indian cricket circles as the team was expected to face the mighty Australians, led by legendary batsman Donald Bradman. His team was later dubbed “Bradman’s Invincibles” after returning undefeated from England in 1948.

De Mello’s India squad was led by ace opening batsman Vijay Merchant, with his reliable partner Mushtaq Ali serving as deputy.

Both had been exceptional on the English tours of 1936 and 1946, cementing their leadership roles. The squad also boasted elegant batter Rusi Modi and promising debutant fast bowler Fazal Mahmood, adding a dynamic mix of experience and fresh talent.

But both Merchant and Modi withdrew from the tour on medical grounds. Ali also withdrew following the death of his elder brother, leaving him with family responsibilities.

As a result, Lala Amarnath was announced as the new captain and Vijay Hazare his deputy.

However, the violence that erupted following partition nearly prevented Amarnath from reaching Australia. According to a 2004 biography by his son Rajender Amarnath, Lala Amarnath narrowly escaped a sectarian mob in Patiala in Indian Punjab. His home in Lahore, now in Pakistan, along with its priceless artefacts, was lost forever.

He also encountered danger during a train journey to Delhi.

At a station in Indian Punjab, a police official recognised Amarnath and gave him a kada – a steel bangle worn by Sikhs and many Hindus as a religious symbol. Later, a mob at the station spared the cricketer because of the kada – it probably led them to believe he shared their faith.

On the other side of the religious divide, pace bowler Mahmood found himself facing a deadly mob on a train.

The team had scheduled two weeks of training in Pune (then Poona) from 15 August – though it was not known then, that was the day India was partitioned.

Despite restrictions, Mahmood reached Poona for the training camp. Afterwards, he travelled to Bombay (now Mumbai) en route to Lahore. He writes in his 2003 autobiography that on the train, two men threatened him, but former Indian captain CK Nayudu intervened, bat in hand, and warned them off.

Once he reached curfew-bound Lahore, Mahmood was horrified by the bloodshed he witnessed there and decided to stay back in Pakistan and not tour Australia. He later became part of the Pakistani cricket team and made his Test debut in 1952-53 against India.

Two other members of India’s squad for the Australia tour – Gul Mohammad and Amir Elahi – also later moved to Pakistan and played against India in the 1952-53 series.

Despite these setbacks, India’s tour went ahead, though a weakened India faced Australia without four of its leading players and lost the series 4-0.

The two countries now play each other almost every two years. The miracle, however, is that the inaugural tour of 1947-48 happened at all, given the tumult at home.

Ukraine has used longer-range Storm Shadow missiles against targets inside Russia for the first time, the BBC understands.

The move follows US President Joe Biden giving Ukraine the green light to use Atacms missiles supplied by Washington to strike inside Russia, prompting a furious response from the Kremlin.

Ukraine had been using both missiles for months, but only against targets in territory occupied by Russia.

Storm Shadow is an Anglo-French cruise missile with a maximum range of around 250km (155 miles). The French call it Scalp.

It is launched from an aircraft, then flies at close to the speed of sound, hugging the terrain, before dropping down and detonating its high explosive warhead.

Storm Shadow – made by manufacturer MBDA – is considered an ideal weapon for penetrating hardened bunkers and ammunition stores, such as those used by Russia in its war against Ukraine.

But each missile costs nearly US$1m (£767,000), so they tend only to be launched as part of a carefully planned flurry of much cheaper drones, sent ahead to confuse and exhaust the enemy’s air defences, just as Russia does to Ukraine.

They have been used with great effect, hitting Russia’s Black Sea naval headquarters at Sevastopol and making the whole of Crimea unsafe for the Russian navy.

Justin Crump, a military analyst, former British Army officer and CEO of the Sibylline consultancy, says Storm Shadow has been a highly effective weapon for Ukraine, striking precisely against well protected targets in occupied territory.

“It’s no surprise that Kyiv has lobbied for its use inside Russia, particularly to target airfields being used to mount the glide bomb attacks that have recently hindered Ukrainian front-line efforts,” he says.

The UK had supplied Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine for months but, like the US, had not allowed Kyiv to use them to strike inside Russia.

But this changed after the Biden administration updated its rules, allowing comparable Atacms missiles to be used outside of Ukraine’s borders.

On Wednesday, it was confirmed Ukraine used UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles against targets inside Russia for the first time.

The Ministry of Defence has not yet publicly commented. But the UK government was known to have been supportive of allowing Ukraine more freedom to use missiles as it saw fit, although it had followed US policy.

• How long-range missiles striking Russia could affect Ukraine war
• Will UK follow the US and allow the use of long-range missiles?

Its most immediate priority is blunting the expected Russian counter-attack on Ukrainian positions in the Kursk region of western Russia.

But Ukrainian cities and front lines are also under daily bombardment from Russia.

Many of the missiles and glide bombs that wreak devastation on military positions, blocks of flats and hospitals are launched by Russian aircraft far within Russia itself.

Kyiv has said that not being allowed to hit the bases these attacks were launched from was akin to making it fight this war with one arm tied behind its back.

Ukraine does have its own, innovative and effective long-range drone programme.

At times, these drone strikes have caught the Russians off guard and reached hundreds of kilometres inside Russia.

But they can only carry a small payload and most get detected and intercepted.

Kyiv argued that in order to push back the Russian air strikes, it needed longer-range missiles, including Storm Shadow.

The US decision to allow the use of its own long-range missiles is also intended to help Ukraine defend the small chunk of Russian territory it currently occupies in the Kursk region. A major assault by Russian and Northern Korean troops is expected.

With the green light to use long-range missiles, airfields and key logistics hubs deep inside Russia have also come within Ukraine’s range.

Kyiv has been asking to use long-range Western missiles inside Russia for so long that Moscow has already taken precautions.

It has moved bombers, missiles and some of the infrastructure that maintains them further back, away from the border with Ukraine and beyond the range of Storm Shadow.

There is scepticism among Western officials that Storm Shadow and the American Atacms will be decisive.

However, the Institute for the Study of War think tank (ISW) has identified around 225 Russian bases that would be in range of Storm Shadows fired from Ukraine.

And Sibylline’s Justin Crump says that while Russian air defences have evolved to counter the threat of Storm Shadow within Ukraine, this task will be much harder given the scope of Moscow’s territory that could now be exposed to attack.

“This will make military logistics, command and control, and air support harder to deliver, and even if Russian aircraft pull back further from Ukraine’s frontiers to avoid the missile threat they will still suffer an increase in the time and costs per sortie to the front line.”

Matthew Savill, director of military science at the Rusi think tank, believes it could also pose a dilemma for Russia as to where to position air defences, which could make it easier for Ukraine’s drones to get through.

Ultimately though, says Savill, Storm Shadow is unlikely to turn the tide. Ukraine doesn’t have many missiles, and the UK has very few left to give.

One reason President Putin views the use of Storm Shadow as an escalation is his belief that Ukrainian troops cannot use long-range missile systems without the aid of Western specialists.

He previously told reporters in Russia that “only servicemen of Nato countries can input flight missions into these missile systems,” adding that Kyiv also relies on satellite intelligence supplied by the West to choose targets.

Manufacturer MBDA declined to comment on the claims when approached by the BBC, directing queries to the UK Ministry of Defence.

A spokesperson for Ukraine’s presidential office also declined to address Putin’s allegations, saying they could not comment on “special technical details regarding weapons”.

Justin Crump cast doubt on Putin’s claim, telling the BBC that if “that claim were true, then Russia would have made it more clearly when the weapons were first supplied, and when they conducted successful and impactful operations against for example the Black Sea Fleet HQ in occupied Crimea”.

“The missile is available for export sales; is Russia seriously saying that any buyer would have to have a Nato/UK team to program and use the missile? That must presumably be buried deep in the fine print of the brochure, and wouldn’t make it an appealing prospect,” he noted.

The scale of Mohamed Al Fayed’s sexual abuse could be similar to that of Jimmy Savile’s, Harrods’ newly appointed survivors’ advocate has told the BBC.

There has been a torrent of allegations against the late billionaire businessman since a BBC documentary in September broadcast the claims of 20 women.

Speaking about her appointment earlier this month, Dame Jasvinder Sanghera said she had been contacted by a former pupil from a school for deaf children.

Al Fayed “had access to vulnerable young women from that school”, she said, adding that testimony she had heard suggested that Al Fayed’s “tentacles went far and wide”.

The school told the BBC that as far as it was aware Al Fayed did not have access to the school, and that it takes safeguarding very seriously.

“We could be talking about something on the scale of Jimmy Savile,” Dame Jasvinder told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“What we do know is that there are many people – and survivors have said this to me already – that were complicit [in Al Fayed’s abuse].

“They looked the other way. This could not have happened without people knowing about it, and he used his position of power and influence.”

Savile was one of Britain’s most notorious and prolific sex offenders. He was a TV presenter and DJ who, until his death in 2011, used his prominent status to rape and sexually assault hundreds of people.

In 2012, the Metropolitan Police said they believed there were 450 victims of Savile’s abuse. He often used philanthropic work as a cover for his crimes.

Dame Jasvinder added that there are currently about 290 women engaged in Harrods’ compensation process for former employees who say they had been abused by Al Fayed, and that she had written a personal letter to each of them.

Separately, more than 70 women have contacted the BBC since the documentary was broadcast, with accounts of abuse by Al Fayed, including sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape.

But Dame Jasvinder believes there are others who have not yet come forward.

She added that she is keen to speak to all victims of Al Fayed’s abuse, even if they didn’t work at Harrods.

Al Fayed is alleged to have also abused women at other businesses he owned, including the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham FC.

She said: “If you look at the breadth of the abuse, this didn’t just happen in Harrods. I’m already hearing from survivors who are saying this happened in other areas.”

The Harrods compensation scheme is only open to people who worked for the company.

But Dame Jasvinder said she “would never turn anybody away that was in need of support – even if they need to access me to talk that through, for me to be able to identify the appropriate level of support or process for them.

“I would absolutely encourage anyone affected by this, or who may know somebody that’s affected, who just wants to have a conversation about the process, to absolutely contact me.”

Dame Jasvinder is a prominent human rights campaigner and the founder of the charity Karma Nirvana, which helps victims of honour-based abuse.

She has previously spoken about her parents attempting to force her to marry when she was a teenager, her escape, and being disowned as a result.

Dame Jasvinder was also a survivor advocate on the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Board until the panel was sacked in June 2023, when the Church said relations between board members and bishops had “broken down”.

• Survivors’ advocate appointed after Al Fayed claims
• Harrods boss tells BBC he is ‘dreadfully sorry’ for Al Fayed abuse

Harrods launched an internal review last year to see whether anyone involved in any allegations is still working there. As yet they have declined to say whether any action has been taken against any individual, or when the review might be completed.

Hundreds of women are also working with separate legal firms in claims against the retailer.

At a press conference last month, Justice for Harrods Survivors, which represents some of the accusers, said more than 400 alleged victims and witnesses had been in contact with them.

Most of the 421 prospective claims were connected to Harrods, but others related to incidents at other businesses owned by Al Fayed, the group said.

The survivors included people from the UK, US, Canada, Europe, Australia and Asia, the lawyers added.

Al Fayed: Predator at Harrods, which aired in September, heard testimony from more than 20 female ex-employees at Harrods.

The documentary and podcast found that during Al Fayed’s ownership, Harrods not only failed to intervene but helped cover up abuse allegations.

Responding to the investigation, Harrods’ current owners said they were “utterly appalled” by the allegations and that his victims had been failed – for which the store sincerely apologised.

• If you have information about this story that you would like to share please get in touch. Email MAFinvestigation@bbc.co.uk. Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist.

Al-Fayed: Predator at Harrods

A BBC investigation into allegations of rape and attempted rape by Mohamed Al Fayed, the former owner of Harrods. Did the luxury store protect a billionaire predator?

Watch Al-Fayed: Predator at Harrods on BBC iPlayer now.

Listen to World of Secrets, Season 4: Al Fayed, Predator at Harrods on BBC Sounds. If you’re outside the UK, you can listen wherever you get your podcasts.

President Biden’s decision to provide anti-personnel mines to Ukraine, and allow the use of long-range missiles on Russian territory comes as the Russian military is accelerating its gains along the front line.

Data from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) shows that Russia has gained almost six times as much territory in 2024 as it did in 2023, and is advancing towards key Ukrainian logistical hubs in the eastern Donbas region.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region is faltering. Russian troops have pushed Kyiv’s offensive backwards. Experts have questioned the success of the offensive, with one calling it a “strategic catastrophe” given manpower shortages faced by Ukraine.

These developments come at a time of heightened uncertainty with a second Donald Trump administration looming. The US president-elect has vowed to bring the war to a close when he takes office in January, with some fearing he could cut future military aid to Ukraine.

In the first few months of the war the front line moved quickly, with Russia gaining ground quickly before being pushed back by a Ukrainian counteroffensive. But in 2023 neither side made any major gains – with the conflict largely sliding into a stalemate.

But new ISW figures suggest the story in 2024 is more favourable for Russia. The ISW bases its analysis on confirmed social media footage and reports of troop movements.

The ISW data shows Moscow’s forces have seized around 2,700 sq km of Ukrainian territory so far this year, compared with just 465 sq km in the whole of 2023, a near six-fold increase.

Dr Marina Miron, a defence researcher at Kings College London, suggested to the BBC that there was a possibility the Ukrainian eastern front “might actually collapse” if Russia continued to advance at pace.

More than 1000 sq km was taken between 1 September and 3 November, suggesting the push accelerated in recent months. Two areas bearing the brunt of these advances are Kupiansk in Kharkiv region, and Kurakhove, a stepping stone to the key logistical hub of Pokrovsk in Donetsk region.

Kupiansk and areas to the east of the Oskil river were liberated in the Kharkiv offensive of 2022, but Russia has progressively retaken the latter area. In a recent intelligence update, the UK’s Ministry of Defence said Russian forces were trying to breach the north-eastern outskirts of the city.

Footage posted on 13 November and verified by the BBC is consistent with this analysis. The video shows a convoy of Russian armour being repelled after making it to within 4km of the key bridge at Kupiansk, the last major road crossing in the area.

While these reports do not necessarily translate to control of an area, it is indicative of how stretched Ukraine’s defensive line has become.

Elsewhere, since retaking the city of Vuhledar in October – an elevated position which sits above key supply lines and which Moscow spent two years fighting for – Russia has thrown resources at Kurakhove.

Ukraine’s forces defending the city have so far repelled attacks to the south and east. But the front line creeps ever closer, with Russia also threatening to encircle defenders from the north and west.

Col Yevgeny Sasyko, a former head of strategic communications with Ukraine’s general staff, said Russia places “powerful jaws” around the flanks of a city that slowly “grind though” defences until they collapse.

Footage from the city verified by the BBC showed massive destruction, with residential buildings heavily damaged.

The ISW concludes Moscow now holds a total of 110,649 sq km in Ukraine. For comparison, Ukrainian forces seized just over 1,171 sq km in the first month of its incursion into Kursk – though Russian forces have now retaken nearly half of that territory.

• Biden agrees to give Ukraine anti-personnel mines
• What we know about missile system Ukraine has used to strike Russia
• What arms are the US, UK and other nations supplying?

Despite its territorial gains, Russia’s advance has come at a huge cost.

An analysis carried out by BBC Russian confirmed that at least 78,329 troops have been killed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, with Moscow’s losses from September to November this year more than one-and-a-half times greater than the same period in 2023.

The losses are compounded by the “meat grinder” approach said to be favoured by Russian commanders – describing the waves of recruits thrown towards Ukrainian positions in a bid to exhaust troops.

Despite the Russian advances, some experts have noted that the actual speed of the offensive is still slow. David Handelman, a military analyst, suggested Ukrainian troops in the east were slowly withdrawing to preserve manpower and resources, rather than suffering from a broader collapse.

Ukraine launched its shock incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in August. It is unclear why Russia took so long to respond to the operation, which saw Kyiv’s troops quickly gain control over a number of border communities.

Dr Miron suggested that while the Kremlin would suffer a domestic political cost for as long as the incursion continued, Russia’s general staff had been keen to keep Ukraine’s forces tied down in Kursk as its forces made gains elsewhere along the front line.

But Moscow is now clearly intent on reclaiming the territory lost on its own soil. Some 50,000 troops have been deployed to the region.

Verified videos from the Kursk region show fierce fighting is taking place – and that Russia is suffering considerable losses in terms of manpower and equipment. But the data clearly shows Ukraine’s control of the region is shrinking.

Since the start of October, Russian counter-attacks have regained some 593 sq km worth of territory in the border region, ISW figures showed.

The Kursk incursion was initially a major boon for Ukraine in terms of morale at a time of serious setbacks, and the audacity of the operation was a reminder of its ability to surprise and harm its enemy.

But Dr Miron said while the Kursk incursion was a moment of “tactical brilliance” it has also been a “strategic catastrophe” for Ukraine.

“The whole idea was to maybe gain some political leverage in potential negotiations, but militarily to draw the Russian forces away from the Donbas in order to liberate Kursk. And what we’re seeing instead is that Ukrainian units are tied down there.”

Some of Kyiv’s most experienced and effective units are known to be fighting in Kursk. Mechanised units equipped with state-of-the-art Western armour are also involved in the offensive.

Ukrainian leaders had hinted that they hoped the incursion would force Moscow to redirect some of its forces from eastern Ukraine, slowing the Russian advance there. Instead, experts say most reinforcements were moved to Kursk from parts in Ukraine where the fighting is not as intense.

“According to Ukrainian soldiers from different parts of the front, the Russian troops reinforcing Kursk were mainly pulled from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia,” Yurri Clavilier, a land analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the BBC.

“The fighting there is not as intense as it is in the East. Some Russian units attacking Kharkiv were also redirected to Kursk as Ukraine managed to stall the Russian onslaught there,” he added.

The importance of territory to both sides is the strength it lends to their position in any potential negotiations. Although no peace negotiations have been discussed, US President-elect Trump has claimed he could end the war within 24 hours, without saying exactly how.

Fears persist in Ukraine that Trump could cut military aid as a means to force Kyiv to the table. President Volodymyr Zelensky told Fox News on Tuesday “I think we will lose [the war]” if cuts are pushed through.

“We have our production, but it’s not enough to prevail and I think it’s not enough to survive,” he said.

​​On Tuesday, Ukraine fired US-supplied long-range missiles into Russia for the first time – a day after Washington gave it permission to do so.​​ It is thought that the decision was made in part to help Ukraine hold on to part of the Kursk region, to help use as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

Dr Miron told the BBC that Russia’s advance has handed them a stronger negotiating position as Trump’s new foreign policy team prepare to take office.

“What they’re controlling right now, it does give them a certain advantage,” she said. “If it came to negotiations, I’m sure that as the Russian side has been stressing, ‘we will do it based on the battlefield configuration’.

“From a Russian perspective, they have much better cards than the Ukrainians.”

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

On a Thursday afternoon towards the end of last month, a 59-year-old Palestinian woman set out to gather olives on her family’s land near the village of Faqqua, in the north of the occupied West Bank.

It was something that Hanan Abu Salameh had done for decades.

Within minutes, the mother of seven and grandmother of 14 lay dying in the dust of the olive grove, with a bullet wound in her chest – she’d been shot by an Israeli soldier.

Even though the family had co-ordinated their intention to pick olives with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), according to her son Fares and husband Hossam, the soldier fired several shots as other family members fled for cover.

The IDF says it’s investigating the incident, but Hanan’s grieving relatives have little hope or expectation that her killer will be brought to justice.

This wasn’t an isolated incident.

Harvesting olives is an age-old ritual and also an economic necessity for many Palestinians, but, according to the UN, it is increasingly precarious.

Farmers across the West Bank – internationally regarded as Palestinian land occupied by Israel – face heightened risks, like organised attacks by Israeli settlers seeking to sabotage the olive harvest, along with the use of force by Israeli security forces to block roads and Palestinians’ access to their lands.

“Last year we couldn’t even harvest our olives, except for a very small amount,” says Omar Tanatara, a farmer from the village of Umm Safa.

“At one point, the army came, threw the olives we’d already gathered on the ground, and ordered us to go home,” says Omar, who is also a member of the village council.

“Some people were even shot at and olives trees were cut down with saws – that’s how we later found them,” adds Omar, as he and other villagers use small hand-held rakes to pull this year’s harvest from their remaining trees while they can.

Even when Israeli and international activists accompany villagers to their olive groves, hoping to deter the threat, there’s no guarantee of safety.

Zuraya Hadad instinctively winces as we watch a video of the incident in which her ribs were broken by a masked man wielding a large stick.

The Israeli peace activist had been helping Palestinian farmers pick their olives when she was assaulted without provocation.

Rather than arresting her attacker, Israeli soldiers, who’d accompanied settlers to the site, just told him to move on.

“Even when we come to help, it doesn’t guarantee that the Palestinians can harvest their olives,” Zuraya tells me as she recovers from her injuries at home.

“We try to raise awareness, but in the end it’s either the settlers steal the olives or cut the trees, or they remain unpicked and go to waste.”

Land is at the heart of the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians – who controls it and who has access to it.

For thousands of Palestinian families and villages, cultivating and harvesting olives is a big part of their economy.

But many say that, in recent times, access to trees on their land has been impeded, often violently by Israeli settlers.

Hundreds of trees – which can take years to reach fruit-bearing maturity – have been deliberately burned or cut down, says the UN.

More than 96,000 dunums (approximately 96 sq km; 37 sq miles) of olive groves in the West Bank also went uncultivated in 2023 because of Israeli restrictions on access for Palestinian farmers.

After being gathered by hand, villagers from Umm Safa take sacks full of olives to the nearby factory, where the presses have restarted this season.

Olives are the most important agricultural product in the West Bank. In a good year, they’re worth more than $70m (£54m) to the Palestinian economy.

But income was well down last year and this year will be even worse, says factory owner Abd al-Rahman Khalifa, as even fewer farmers are able to harvest their crop owing to attacks by settlers.

“Let me give you an example,” he tells me.

“My brother-in-law in Lubban – next to the Israeli settlement – went to pick his own olives, but they broke his arms and they made him leave along with everyone who was with him.”

“We, as Palestinians, don’t have petrol or big companies. Our main agricultural crop is olives,” he adds. “So, like the Gulf depends on oil, and the Americans on business, our economy is dependent on the olive tree.”

On the hill overlooking the olive groves of Umm Safa stands an illegal settler outpost – a farm.

The extremist settler who runs it, Zvi Bar Yosef, was sanctioned this year by the UK and other Western governments for repeated acts of violence against Palestinians, including twice threatening families at gunpoint.

Over the last year of the war in Gaza, Jewish settlers have been emboldened by the support of far-right Israeli ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir.

As national security minister, he has given out free firearms to hundreds of settlers and has encouraged them to assert their right to what – they say – is their “God-given” land.

Ben-Gvir has also been accused of openly supporting the disruption of olive harvesting on Palestinian land.

At the olive press, farmers wait patiently in the yard to witness the transformation of the olives they’ve been able to gather this year into “liquid gold”.

The olive tree has been a symbol of this land for centuries.

For generations of Palestinians, it is their link to the land – a link that is under threat now more than ever.

Some of US President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks look likely to face a fierce confirmation battle in Washington as their fitness to safeguard the rule of law, national security and public health comes under scrutiny.

US Vice-President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio senator, is introducing the contenders to his colleagues on Capitol Hill this week as the incoming Trump administration seeks to smooth the path of its transition.

But while the prospective appointees could face pushback in the Senate, they have received a largely positive reception so far from Republican voters contacted by the BBC.

Virtually all of them approved of his cabinet picks, hailing them as much-needed disruptors to what they see as a corrupt establishment.

“It just scares the pants off the establishment people because most of the people in Congress are bought and corrupt,” David Pautsch, a Trump supporter from Davenport, Iowa, told the BBC. “These picks are going to upset the apple cart.”

“They’re all wonderful,” he added.

• Live updates on Trump cabinet picks

Some of Trump’s cabinet picks, such as Marco Rubio, nominated to be US secretary of state, have won praise from both sides of the aisle. But a handful of others have been the subject of a barrage of negative headlines in recent weeks.

Reports alleged that Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice for defence secretary, paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault to stay quiet so he would not risk losing his job.

Hegseth, a Fox News host, denies any wrongdoing and maintains the sexual encounter was consensual.

Robert F Kennedy, Trump’s pick for US health secretary, has alarmed the pharmaceutical industry and America’s medical community with his vaccine scepticism, although his criticism of processed foods has drawn support from many top doctors.

Allies of Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice to be US attorney general, are meanwhile battling the release of a congressional ethics report on claims – which he denies – that he had once sex with an underage girl.

The Department of Justice – which Gaetz, 42, would lead if confirmed – investigated the matter last year and declined to press charges.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s choice to be director of national intelligence, has been accused by critics of casting doubt on the very spy agencies she would oversee, while her allies say attempts to portray the military veteran as a Kremlin asset amount to a smear.

An opinion poll this week by Echelon Insights found that all of Trump’s cabinet picks – apart from Gaetz – have a slight edge in net favourability from members of the American public who participated in the survey.

But voter reaction mirrors sentiments about Trump himself and not all Republicans approve of his selections.

Michele Allen, a self-described “Never Trumper” from Arizona, told the BBC she is “flabbergasted” by the line-up.

“It’s a good-old-boys’ club and [Trump’s] appointing people to positions where they’re going to hurt a lot of people by getting their personal vendettas across,” Allen says.

The 39-year-old, who works in healthcare, says she is “quite disgusted” by RFK Jr’s pick as health secretary.

But voters who backed Trump told the BBC they see the criticism of the nominees as more reason to approve of them.

Dominic Bashford, 28, said he sees Trump’s picks as change-makers.

“I really feel the new Trump administration is giving me a voice,” he told the BBC.

He hopes Gabbard will put an end to the “constant wars”.

Bashford also said he is “excited” about the prospect of RFK leading the health department, despite the furore over his questioning of vaccines.

The one Trump pick Bashford does not like is Rubio.

“If [former US National Security Adviser] John Bolton’s a fan of someone, I take that as a big scare,” Bashford said.

Meanwhile, Indiana resident Alli Rastrelli, 20, said she was happy with some of Trump’s cabinet selections like Gabbard and Kennedy, even if she does question their credentials.

“These people seem more like they were loyal to [Trump] during the campaign so [he is] rewarding them with a position, rather than they are the most qualified person for the position,” Rastrelli said.

• How these new recruits will be vetted
• What Trump can and can’t do on day one
• What to know about Gaetz allegations
• Fact-checking RFK’s views on health policy
• What Trump picks say about Mid East policy

North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher makes sense of the presidential election in his twice weekly US Election Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Family, friends and former bandmates have remembered Liam Payne at the One Direction star’s funeral, just over a month after he died at the age of 31.

The private service took place on Wednesday in Amersham in Buckinghamshire, north-west of London.

Payne’s former bandmates Harry Styles, Louis Tomlinson, Niall Horan and Zayn Malik were among the mourners, alongside Payne’s girlfriend Kate Cassidy and his former partner Cheryl, with whom he shares a son.

Payne’s coffin arrived at the church on a white horse-drawn hearse carrying floral tributes spelling the words “son” and “daddy”.

After the service, four pallbearers carried the coffin from St Mary’s Church, followed by his parents and Cheryl.

Her Girls Aloud bandmates Kimberley Walsh and Nicola Roberts also attended the service, as did One Direction’s former label boss Simon Cowell, who was seen comforting the family.

Presenters James Corden, Marvin and Rochelle Humes, Scott Mills and Adrian Chiles were also among the mourners.

Other floral tributes at the funeral included one in the shape of a set of 10-pin bowling pins and ball, a reference to one of Payne’s favourite pastimes.

A small crowd of locals and onlookers gathered outside the church, but fans largely stayed away, with members of the One Direction group on Reddit reminding others that “memorials are for fans, funerals are for family”.

Payne lived in the nearby village of Chalfont St Giles.

Payne died on 16 October after falling from the third floor of a hotel room in the Argentine capital Buenos Aires.

In a short statement following his death, his family said: “We are heartbroken. Liam will forever live in our hearts and we’ll remember him for his kind, funny and brave soul.”

An autopsy confirmed the 31-year-old had suffered internal and external bleeding and multiple traumatic injuries.

Payne was one of the most recognisable names in pop, after rising to fame on The X Factor.

Despite only coming third on the show in 2010, One Direction went on to become the biggest British group since The Beatles.

During their five-year career, they sold 70 million records, with four UK number one singles and four number one albums.

A co-writer on many of their hits, Payne also achieved solo success with tracks like Strip That Down and Bedroom Floor.

He is survived by his parents, two sisters and Bear, his son with Girls Aloud singer Cheryl.

Jimmy Lai, one of Hong Kong’s most influential pro-democracy figures, has testified in court for the first time in a national security trial that may see him sentenced to life in jail.

The 76-year-old founder of the now-defunct Hong Kong tabloid Apple Daily has been accused of colluding with foreign forces.

But Lai told the court on Wednesday that he had “never” used his foreign contacts, which include ex-US VP Mike Pence and former Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen, to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong.

Lai is already serving prison sentences for a range of offences for his alleged role in pro-democracy protests in 2019, which led to China imposing a sweeping national security law (NSL) in the city.

His hearing comes one day after the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners – part of a group known as the Hong Kong 47.

Sporting a brown jacket and glasses, Lai smiled and waved to his family and the public as he entered the courtroom, looking in good spirits, though he appeared to have lost weight since his arrest several years ago.

Outside the court, dozens of people waited in line to show their support for the media mogul.

A similar crowd had gathered on Tuesday for the sentencing of the Hong Kong 47, which included some of the biggest names in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, like Benny Tai and Joshua Wong.

When asked if he had tried to influence foreign policy on Hong Kong through his list of overseas contacts – which include the likes of former Taiwan president Tsai and high level US officials – Lai replied “never”.

Asked about his meeting with then US Vice President Mike Pence, Lai said he did not ask anything of him.

“I would just relay to him what happened in Hong Kong when he asked me,” he told the court.

He was also asked about his meeting with then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, to which he said he had asked Pompeo: “Not to do something but to say something, To voice support for Hong Kong.”

Lai is one of hundreds of activists, lawmakers and protesters that have been detained under the NSL, which Beijing claims was necessary to quell the unrest in Hong Kong that emerged in 2019.

In its daily press briefing on Wednesday, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian slammed Lai, calling him the “main plotter and participant of the anti-China chaos in Hong Kong”.

Beijing considers Mr Lai a traitor who sought to undermine China’s security. But critics say Mr Lai’s case is yet another example of Beijing’s tightening grip on the former British territory.

Lai’s ongoing trial has seen him plead not guilty to two conspiracy charges of collusion with foreign forces and a third count relating to his tabloid paper Apple Daily, which has been accused of publishing seditious material against the government following the imposition of the national security law.

Lai argued that he opposed violence and “never allowed” his newspaper’s staff to advocate for Hong Kong independence, which he described as a “conspiracy” and “too crazy to think about”.

“The core values of Apple Daily are actually the core values of the people of Hong Kong,” he added.

These values, he said, include the “rule of law, freedom, pursuit of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly.”

The tabloid, which ceased operations one year after Lai’s arrest, was known for its pro-democracy stance.

In 2021, authorities froze Apple Daily’s bank account and arrested key staff members, saying its articles violated the National Security Law.

The prosecution of Lai, who holds British citizenship, has captured international attention, with rights groups and foreign governments urging his release.

US President-elect Donald Trump said in a podcast in October that he would “100%” get Lai out of China.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has described Lai as a “priority” for his government, expressed concerns about Lai’s “deterioration” when he met Chinese President Xi Jinping during the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro this week.

Lai’s family and legal team have raised concerns about his health, pointing to his weight loss and increasing frailty during his recent court appearances.

Lai was previously sentenced to jail on charges including unauthorised assembly and fraud, and has been held in solitary confinement since late 2020.

US President-elect Donald Trump has picked former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO and his transition co-chair, Linda McMahon, as his nominee for education secretary.

A long-time Trump ally, McMahon led the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first presidency and donated millions of dollars to his presidential campaign.

Trump has criticised the Department of Education, and has promised to close it down – a job McMahon could be tasked with after Trump returns to the White House in January 2025.

Trump earlier chose Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor and former TV host whose approaches have come under scrutiny, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The two selections on Tuesday – along with Trump’s choice of Howard Lutnick for commerce secretary – follow a pattern of the president-elect nominating loyal supporters to top roles in his cabinet.

• Who else is in Trump’s top team?
• United by loyalty, Trump’s new team have competing agendas

McMahon has a long history with the WWE and Trump, who used to make occasional appearances at wrestling matches. She co-founded Titan Sports with her husband in 1980, which then became the parent company of WWE later that decade.

She resigned as CEO in 2009 in order to undertake a failed bid to run for the US Senate.

McMahon has little background in education, but did serve on Connecticut state’s board of education from 2009 until 2010.

She is the board chair of the pro-Trump think tank the America First Policy Institute, meaning her confirmation in the Republican-majority Senate is likely. Hers is one of a number of top jobs that will require a vote of approval in the upper chamber of Congress.

Announcing his pick on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “For the past four years, as the chair of the board at the America First Policy Institute, Linda has been a fierce advocate for parents’ rights.”

He said McMahon would “spearhead” the effort to “send education BACK TO THE STATES”, in reference to his pledge to close the department.

Republicans have accused the education department of pushing what they describe as “woke” political ideology on to children, including on gender and race. They want the agency’s authority handed to US states, which run most education matters.

• Trump’s pledge to axe the Department of Education explained

McMahon was named in a lawsuit filed last month involving the WWE.

It alleges that she, her husband and other company leaders knowingly allowed young boys to be abused by a ringside announcer who died in 2012.

The McMahons deny wrongdoing. A lawyer representing the pair told USA Today Sports that the allegations are “false claims” that stem from “absurd, defamatory and utterly meritless” media reports.

Trump earlier picked Mehmet Oz to run the powerful agency that oversees the healthcare of millions of Americans.

Oz, who was selected to lead the CMS, trained as a surgeon before finding fame on The Oprah Winfrey Show in the early 2000s.

Oz has been criticised by experts for promoting what they called bad health advice about weight loss drugs and “miracle” cures, and suggesting malaria drugs as a cure for Covid-19 in the early days of the pandemic.

“There may be no physician more qualified and capable than Dr Oz to make America healthy again,” Trump said in a statement.

The Trump transition team said in a statement that Oz “will work closely with [health secretary nominee] Robert F Kennedy Jr to take on the illness industrial complex, and all the horrible chronic diseases left in its wake”.

Like McMahon, Oz will need to be confirmed by the Senate next year before he officially takes charge of the agency.

The CMS oversees the country’s largest healthcare programs, providing coverage to more than 150 million Americans. The agency regulates health insurance and sets policy that guides the prices that doctors, hospitals and drug companies are paid for medical services.

In 2023, the US government spent more than $1.4tn (£1.1tn) on Medicaid and Medicare combined, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Trump said in a statement that Oz would “cut waste and fraud within our country’s most expensive government agency”. The Republican Party platform pledged to increase transparency, choice and competition and expand access to healthcare and prescription drugs.

Oz, 64, trained as a cardiothoracic surgeon – specialising in operations on the heart and lungs – and worked at New York City’s Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University.

After he appeared in dozens of Oprah segments, he started The Dr Oz Show, where he doled out health advice to viewers.

But the line between promotion and science on the show was not always clear, and Oz has recommended homeopathy, alternative medicine and other treatments that critics have called “pseudoscience”.

He was criticised during Senate hearings in 2014 for endorsing unproven pills that he said would “literally flush fat from your system” and “push fat from your belly”.

During those hearings Oz said he never sold any specific dietary supplements on his show. But he has publicly endorsed products off air and his financial ties to health care companies were revealed in fillings made during his 2022 run for the US Senate in Pennsylvania.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Oz promoted the anti-malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which experts say are ineffective against the virus.

• How these new recruits will be vetted
• What Trump can and can’t do on day one
• What to know about Gaetz allegations
• Fact-checking RFK’s views on health policy
• What Trump picks say about Mid East policy

The Vatican has blocked discussions over women’s rights at the UN climate summit following a row over gay and transgender issues, sources have told BBC News.

Pope Francis’ representatives have aligned with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Egypt to obstruct a deal which would have provided more support, including financial help, for women at the forefront of climate change, Colombia’s environment minister told the BBC.

Charities including ActionAid said it is crucial a deal is reached as the UN estimates women and girls currently make up 80% of those displaced by climate change.

A Vatican spokesperson said the Holy See still hoped consensus could be reached.

Representatives from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Egypt did not respond to requests for comment.

Countries at this year’s COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan were due to update the ten-year old UN action plan to make sure that any work on climate change took account of the experiences of women and channelled more money to them.

For a decade it has been called the Lima Work Programme on Gender.

But the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Egypt now do not want any reference to “gender” – over concerns it could include transgender women, and want references to gay woman removed, the BBC has been told by charities observing the talks and negotiators from other countries.

This has stalled the whole deal on progressing women’s access to support in the face of climate change, they say.

“It is unacceptable,” Colombia’s environment minister and lead negotiator Susana Muhamad said of the stalling. She was one of the only country representatives willing to speak on the record. The others spoke to the BBC anonymously on the grounds that they were taking part in ongoing negotiations.

“The Latin American countries are working very hard – we will not allow the gender programme to drop and allow human rights to be dropped,” she told BBC News.

The Vatican spokesperson said it was important to pursue an agreed text that recognised the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and girls.

“The Holy See hopes that consensus will be reached, with respect for the sensitivities of each participating State and in a language acceptable to all,” the spokesperson said.

For more than a decade it has been acknowledged by countries globally that women face a disproportionate burden from climate change, often due to their caring roles and interruption of access to reproductive services during climate disasters.

According to UN Women, by 2050 close to 240 million more women and girls will face food insecurity caused by climate change compared to 131 million more men and boys. Whilst at the same time only 0.01% of funding globally goes to climate change projects that also take account of women.

In the new plan African and EU countries wanted to also include a line that not all women’s experiences of climate change are the same – that they can differ depending on their “gender, sex, age and race”.

The Vatican, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Egypt and Iran, said they took issue with the use of the word “gender” which they think could include transgender women, country negotiators told the BBC.

Charities observing this were surprised as over the course of a decade these countries had not taken issue with the use of the word.

“I was shocked when the Vatican raised their flag and opposed the human rights language,” said Sostina Takure, from Christian charity ACT Alliance. “My heart shattered into a million pieces.”

Mwanahamisi Singano, the policy lead for the Women’s Environment and Development Organization, told the BBC the group of countries also opposed the text as they did not want to reference gay women.

Ms Singano, who was in the negotiating room, said countries like Iran argued that homosexuality was illegal under their laws and therefore they would not allow those groups to be recognised in the text.

Aid charities have said the deadlock has put the whole deal over support for women in jeopardy with just three days to go before the conference ends.

“I think if things continue the way they are it is not looking good for women’s rights in the negotiations,” said Zahra Hdidou, senior climate adviser at ActionAid.

When asked why the Vatican and others were making the intervention now, after nearly a decade, one country negotiator told the BBC: “It is part of a broader global backlash against women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights.”

Pope Francis has allowed priests to bless same-sex couples under certain circumstances and last year he said transgender people could be baptised in the Catholic Church as long as doing so did not cause scandal or “confusion”.

But the Vatican said it continued to view marriage as between a man and a woman, and in April it said it remained staunchly opposed to sex changes, gender theory and surrogate parenthood in a text dubbed “Dignitas Infinita” (Infinite Dignity).

• Vatican stands firm on issues like sex change

The current UN programme on gender and climate is due to expire at the end of this year, meaning that if nothing is agreed at COP29 there will be no specific global plan for supporting women facing climate change.

But Ms Hdidou told the BBC part of the problem was the scant representation of women at the talks. Last year only 36% of those negotiating at the conference were women, according to the UN.

“Our voices are often shut out of the COP29 negotiating rooms. Which means we will get outcomes that don’t reflect the lived realities of women in climate-hit areas,” she said.

At the start of the conference the EU published a letter – now supported by 17 countries – which says “our ability to address the climate crisis hinges upon our commitment to the empowerment of women and girls, in all their diversity.”

The western Rust has premiered in Poland, three years after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was accidentally shot and killed on set in New Mexico.

Organisers of Poland’s Camerimage International Film Festival said the screening was a tribute to the 42-year-old Ukrainian-born cinematographer, who was a fan of the event and had attended in the past.

The movie’s star Alec Baldwin was not invited and did not attend the premiere.

Writer and director Joel Souza, who was wounded in the shooting, told the BBC at the premiere that at one point he “couldn’t even conceive of ever being back on the set ever again, it just hurt too much”.

He said he changed his mind and decided to complete the film after speaking to Hutchins’ husband, Matt.

But the announcement that Camerimage in the northern Polish city of Torun was going to give the movie its international debut has been criticised by some prominent cinematographers in Hollywood for being disrespectful to Hutchins’ memory.

Hutchins’ mother, Olga Solovey, who is suing the production and Alec Baldwin in a civil action, didn’t attend either.

In a statement issued by her lawyer she said she regards the premiere as an attempt to profit from her daughter’s death.

“Alec Baldwin continues to increase my pain with his refusal to apologise to me and his refusal to take responsibility for her death,” she said.

In October 2021, Baldwin was rehearsing a scene on set with a gun, which was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, when the weapon fired a live round, killing Hutchins and wounding Souza.

How a live bullet got into the gun remains a mystery.

In July, a judge dismissed an involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin after police and prosecutors withheld evidence from the defence.

In March, the armourer on the film set, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and is serving an 18-month prison sentence. She has appealed against the verdict.

• How events unfolded after fatal shooting on Alec Baldwin film set

Set in 1882 in Wyoming, Rust tells the story of a 13-year-old boy who is sentenced to be hanged after he accidentally kills a rancher. He goes on the run with his grandfather, Baldwin’s Harlan Rust.

Souza, who attended the premiere with Bianca Cline who replaced Hutchins as the film’s cinematographer, refused several requests to complete the film after the tragic shooting, said Hutchins’ husband, Matt, convinced him to complete the film, which is dedicated to her.

“At first I didn’t really know if I wanted to do this to be honest, but as I found out that this is what Matt wanted, this is what the family wanted, it started to change the equation for me,” he told the BBC.

“It was going to be more about honouring her legacy and her memory, saying that her final work was completed and that began to change my mind on things,” he added.

Both he and Cline acknowledged that many in the industry were uncomfortable with his decision.

“Everybody’s angry, we’re angry as well. It’s something tragic and it’s hard to deal with. Some people think it’s better to deal with that through not participating and other people think it’s honourable like we do. I don’t think there’s any right or wrong answer to this,” Cline told the BBC.

Before the screening, Rachel Mason, a close friend of Hutchins who filmed a documentary about the making of Rust, recalled how difficult it was to complete the movie with all the controversy surrounding it.

She said some crew members told her not to film them on the closed set, in case, she said, it was discovered they had worked on Rust “and I might never get a job again”.

Crew came back to finish the filming after they realised it might help Hutchins’ family.

“She had this amazing gift of becoming friends very, very fast with people. And they all fell in love with her,” she said.

Ms Mason also recounted a conversation with Hutchins’ mother 18 months ago during which she told her she wanted the film to be completed because it was her daughter’s “big work”.

Rust depicts the manhunt for grandfather and grandson amidst a backdrop of snow-capped mountains and tumbleweed dirt towns.

It knowingly acknowledges classic westerns including John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’ and Sergio Leone’s ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’.

Souza was very close to his own grandfather, who, he said, loved westerns.

Several people I spoke to after the screening enjoyed the movie with Jan, a film colourist from Warsaw calling it “a classic western”.

Leonora, a cinematographer from Belarus said it was brilliant and she had cried all the way through Ms Mason’s speech.

One viewer noted the many gunfight scenes involving Alec Baldwin could be distracting.

“All the time as I was thinking about it, especially during the gunfight scenes, it was hard not to get pulled back out of the movie, especially when Alec Baldwin’s holding a gun, but most of the time it was just a really, really enjoyable experience,” Maciej from Torun said.

In a statement, Melina Spadone, representative for Rust Movie Productions, defended the festival against some of the criticism.

“The Camerimage festival celebrates the artistry of cinematographers; it is not a festival for buyers.

“None of the producers of Rust stand to benefit financially from the film. The suggestion that those involved in completing Halyna Hutchins’ film were motivated by profit is disrespectful to those who worked tirelessly to honor her legacy.”

The gold-capped tooth of Patrice Lumumba, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s independence hero, is safe and has not been stolen, his daughter has told the BBC.

The news comes as a relief to a nation gripped by fear that the only remains of the country’s revered first prime minister had been swiped after his mausoleum in the capital, Kinshasa, was vandalised on Monday night.

But Juliana Lumumba said previous concerns about the security of the site had prompted the family to move the tooth to a more secure location.

The tooth was only returned to the Lumumba family by former colonial power Belgium two years ago – and had been placed in the special memorial building.

Lumumba was much loved not just by many at home but across Africa for his outspoken criticism of colonialism – and he became an icon of pan-Africanism.

He was seen as a symbol of change and hope after the harrowing years under Belgian rule, during which millions of Congolese people died or were brutalised.

• Why Belgium is returning a Congolese hero’s golden tooth
• Patrice Lumumba: DR Congo buries tooth of independence hero

But within months of the country’s independence from Belgium in 1960 he was toppled as prime minister.

At the age of 35 he was shot by a firing squad in January 1961, with the tacit backing of Belgium.

His body was then dissolved in acid, but Belgian police officer Gerard Soete, who oversaw the destruction, took the tooth as a macabre memento.

The return of Lumumba’s gold tooth in June 2022 was a cause for celebration in DR Congo – and it was taken on a tour of the vast country so people could pay their respects.

The vandalism of the mausoleum has caused outrage – and when Culture Minister Yolande Elebe Mandembo announced on Tuesday that an investigation had been launched, many feared the worst.

Footage circulated showing that a glass door had been smashed to get access to the chamber where a coffin could be seen.

But Ms Lumumba sought to reassure people on Wednesday – saying her father’s tooth had not been there at the time of the break-in.

Nonetheless she told the BBC she felt “anger and sadness” that her father’s grave had been disrespected.

Now 69, she spent years lobbying Belgium for the return of the tooth.

“Patrice Lumumba sacrificed himself for the sovereignty and independence of his country and the Congolese,” she said.

“This is so unrepresentative of our culture, which respects the graves of our dearly departed.”

Local authorities say four suspects have been arrested over the desecration, but their identities have not been made public.

Ms Lumumba said the Lumumba Foundation wanted to take over management of the mausoleum because of security worries and had been lobbying the government to do so.

• MI6 and the death of Patrice Lumumba
• Belgian king laments racism of colonial past

Indian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged with fraud in the US, which has accused him of orchestrating a $250m (£198m) bribery scheme and concealing it to raise money in the US.

The criminal charges, filed on Wednesday in New York, are the latest blow to 62-year-old Mr Adani, one of India’s richest men, whose business empire extends from ports and airports to renewable energy.

In the indictment, prosecutors alleged the tycoon and other senior executives had agreed to the payments to Indian officials to win contracts for his renewable energy company expected to yield more than $2bn in profits over 20 years.

The Adani Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The conglomerate has been operating under a cloud in the US since 2023, when a high-profile company published a report accusing it of fraud. The claims, which Mr Adani denied, prompted a major market sell-off.

Reports of this bribery probe have been circling for months. Prosecutors said the US started investigating the company in 2022, and found the inquiry obstructed.

They allege that executives raised $3bn in loans and bonds, including from US firms, on the backs of false and misleading statements related to the firm’s anti-bribery practices and policies, as well as reports of the bribery probe.

“As alleged, the defendants orchestrated an elaborate scheme to bribe Indian government officials to secure contracts worth billions of dollars and… lied about the bribery scheme as they sought to raise capital from U.S. and international investors,” US Attorney Breon Peace said in a statement announcing the charges.

“My office is committed to rooting out corruption in the international marketplace and protecting investors from those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the integrity of our financial markets,” he added.

On several occasions Mr Adani met personally with government officials to advance the bribery scheme, officials said.

Mr Adani is a close ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He has long faced claims from opposition politicians alleging that he has benefited from his political ties, which he denies.

The US Attorney positions in the US are appointed by the president. The filing comes just weeks after Donald Trump won election to the White House, pledging to overhaul the US Justice Department.

Last week on social media, Mr Adani congratulated Trump on his election win and pledged to invest $10bn in the US.

A 43-year-old man was fatally shot by police in Las Vegas after he called 911 for help while fighting off an intruder in his home.

The family of Brandon Durham, including his 15-year-old daughter who was hiding in a nearby room, have asked for the officer to be fired.

Mr Durham’s teenage daughter said she was “disgusted” with Las Vegas police as they treated him like “the suspect” not “the victim”.

A lawyer for Alexander Bookman, the officer who shot Mr Durham, said he committed no crimes.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said Mr Bookman, 26, had been placed on paid administrative leave while they conduct an internal review of the 12 November incident.

Mr Durham had called 911 to report that two people were shooting outside and were trying to break into his home, police said.

Officers responding to the report found cars with broken windows outside.

They also noticed damage to the house and heard shouting from inside, police said, prompting Mr Bookman to kick down the front door to enter.

Body camera footage released by the police shows Mr Bookman walking through the home with his gun drawn, while screaming and banging can be heard out of view.

• Video shows Illinois police fatally shoot woman in her home

Turning the corner of an L-shaped hallway, the officer finds a shirtless Mr Durham wrestling over a knife with a woman wearing a ski mask, later identified as 31-year-old Alejandra Boudreaux.

Mr Bookman yells, “hey, drop the knife, drop the knife”, seconds before firing a shot that hit Mr Durham and sent him and Ms Boudreaux to the ground.

Mr Bookman then fires five more shots at Mr Durham and says “put your hands up”, body-worn camera footage released by police showed.

Mr Durham was pronounced dead at the scene. Ms Boudreaux was arrested and charged with four counts, including home invasion with a deadly weapon.

“I am disgusted in how the Metropolitan Police told my father, after killing him, to stay down,” Mr Durham’s daughter told local news. “I’m disgusted that the Metropolitan Police will allow me to live fatherless for the rest of my life.”

The family’s lawyer has asked for an immediate arrest warrant for Mr Bookman.

“Unlike a civil case, in which an individual’s negligence is at issue, criminal cases require proof of a person’s criminal intent,” David Roger, general counsel for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said in a statement to CNN. “While Mr. Durham’s death is tragic, Officer Bookman was doing his job and did not intend to commit a crime.”

Citing a police report, local news outlets said Mr Durham and Ms Boudreaux were previously in a romantic relationship.

Assistant Sheriff Dori Koren said police did not find a gun on the scene, despite multiple reports of shots fired.

The incident brought police shootings back into the spotlight, occurring just days before the justice department opened an investigation into the death of Sonya Massey, who was fatally shot in July by an officer inside her home in Illinois.

In a matter of days US President Joe Biden’s administration and Russia have made separate – but significant – moves aimed at influencing the outcome of the war in Ukraine, two months ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

There is a sense of Moscow maximising its gains and of Biden abandoning long-held red lines before Trump seeks to deliver on his claim to end the war in 24 hours.

Ukraine has already acted on Biden’s decision to let Kyiv fire first long-range Atacms missiles deep into Russian territory. As Kyiv struggles to hold on to its territory in the east, Biden has promised to send anti-personnel landmines too as part of new military assistance worth nearly $300m (£239m).

What prompted Biden’s change of heart appears to have been the arrival of thousands of North Koreans deployed to the front line, which the US sees as a “massive escalation”.

But Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has ratcheted up the tension still further by loosening the conditions of use for Russia’s nuclear weapons. That “effectively eliminates” defeat on the battlefield, claims Moscow.

One Russia commentator suggested Putin might view the current situation as an “in-between” moment that gives him the sense he has the upper hand in Ukraine.

At the start of this week, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack on Ukraine for almost three months. Amid fears of a renewed strike on Wednesday, several Western embassies closed their doors.

“It’s all connected,” says Mykhaylo Samus, head of the New Geopolitics Research Network in Ukraine. He argues Russia has been stockpiling hundreds of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles for weeks to enable it to carry out strikes and thus send a psychological message ahead of the transfer of power in Washington DC.

Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, may have been spared on Wednesday, but the message got through.

“Everything is about preparing for a strong position for talks with Trump, to understand Russia is not going to make compromise and everything depends on [Ukraine’s President Volodymyr] Zelensky.”

“There’s clearly an effort ahead of Trump to maximise their standings,” agrees Jade McGlynn, from the war studies department at King’s College London. She is highly sceptical that a deal with Putin is possible – and that ultimately his aim is to subjugate Russia’s south-western neighbour.

Ukraine marked 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion on Tuesday with Russian forces waging relentless attacks in a bid to seize key hubs in the east of Ukraine.

The mood in Moscow appears to be that it is only a matter of time before Ukraine is in its hands, says Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

From January, however, Putin will have to consider other factors, she says: “He will have to deal with the fact that Trump now is responsible for the situation. If Putin escalates, it can worsen the chances for a deal. He will have to be more flexible, more open to different options.”

The Biden administration announced new military assistance for Ukraine to include ammunition, missiles and drones, as well as anti-personnel landmines.

The US leader’s decision to allow Kyiv to begin firing Atacms into Russian territory was clearly directed at helping Kyiv, but it was felt by the Trump entourage, too.

Although Trump has so far said nothing, his pick for National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, spoke of “another step up the escalation ladder and nobody knows where this is going”.

He did not go as far as some on the Trump team. Donald Trump Jr complained Biden was trying to “get World War Three” going before his father could even return to the White House.

“There’s one president at a time,” said state department spokesman Matthew Miller “When the next president takes office, he can make his own decisions.”

Some Republicans have backed Biden’s move, although Sen Lindsay Graham said he should have done it “to help Ukraine and he’s playing politics with it”.

Russia’s reaction may or may not be an empty threat.

Under its revised nuclear doctrine, Moscow will now be able to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries that are backed by nuclear powers, and if it comes under “massive” air attack, too.

Alexander Yermakov from the Russian International Affairs Council says the change is not so much as an operational manual for using nuclear weapons, but “primarily it serves as a declaration to potential adversaries, outlining the scenarios in which such measures could be considered”.

Another message from Putin to the West, then.

Tatiana Stanovaya believes it is not that he wants to start World War Three, but because “he believes he must scare the Western elites to show they are playing with fire”.

What happens beyond January is anyone’s guess.

Kremlin insiders have already begun briefing about their minimal demands from any Trump initiative to end the war, and Volodymyr Zelensky has begun making his position clear too.

Asked in a US TV interview what would happen to Ukraine if Washington slashed military aid, he was clear: “If they will cut, I think we will lose. Of course, anyway, we will stay and we will fight. We have production, but it’s not enough to prevail.”

Putin insists Ukraine will have to remain neutral for any relations to work, even though it is now part of Ukraine’s constitution to join both Nato and the European Union.

A Reuters news agency report on Wednesday cited Russian officials saying Putin might be open to pulling out from relatively small patches of territory but nothing bigger.

Zelensky on Tuesday presented his 10-point “resilience plan” to parliament, and one defiant message rang out in the Verkhovna Rada more than most.

“Maybe Ukraine will have to outlive someone in Moscow in order to achieve all its goals… to restore the full integrity of Ukraine.”

One day Russia would be without Putin, in other words, but Ukraine would be going nowhere.

For Ukrainians that wait could take years, says Mykhaylo Samus, but they would never consent to abandoning Crimea or any other territory under Russian occupation.

The most Zelensky might be prepared to sign would be a ceasefire without commitments, he believes. Anything else would lead to internal conflict as many would view it as a betrayal.

Ahead of any talks Mykola Bielieskov of the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv believes the key is to prevent any major Russian breakthrough in the east.

“For us it’s just necessary to localise [Russian] advances… using Atacms, anti-personnel landmines or whatever. Because if the Russians are successful they would try to dictate terms.”

Speaking to the BBC from Kharkiv, Jade McGlynn said few Ukrainians believed Trump would be able to engineer any kind of lasting peace deal.

Any kind of settlement that left Ukraine in a much worse position would lead to political chaos, she said.

“Europe needs to step up,” she said, “and ultimately we know that the Scandinavians, Baltic states and Poland are not enough.”

A woman in Thailand has been sentenced to death in the first of a string of cases in which she is accused of murdering 14 friends with cyanide.

The court in Bangkok found Sararat Rangsiwuthaporn, 36, guilty of putting poison in a wealthy friend’s food and drink while they were on a trip last year.

Relatives of the friend refused to accept she died of natural causes and an autopsy found traces of cyanide in her body. Police arrested Sararat and uncovered other similar deaths going back to 2015. One person she allegedly targeted survived.

Police say Sararat, dubbed Am Cyanide by Thai media, had a gambling addiction and targeted friends she owed money to, then stole their jewellery and valuables.

Sararat travelled with her friend Siriporn Khanwong, 32, to Ratchaburi province, west of Bangkok in April 2023, where they took part in a Buddhist protection ritual at a river, police said.

Siriporn collapsed and died after a meal with Sararat, who made no effort to help her, investigators said.

Traces of cyanide were found in Siriporn’s body and her phone, money and bags were missing when she was found, police said.

“You got justice, my child. Today, there is justice in this world,” Siriporn’s mother, Thongpin Kiatchanasiri, said in front of the courtroom, as she held a photo of her daughter.

Thongpin said that out of anger, she could not stand to look at Sararat, who she said was smiling when the sentence was being read. Sararat pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.

Her former husband, an ex-police officer, and her lawyer, were handed prison terms of one year and four months, and two years respectively, for hiding evidence to help her evade prosecution. They had also pleaded not guilty before Wednesday’s sentencing.

The ex-husband, Vitoon Rangsiwuthaporn, gave himself up last year. Police said he most likely helped Sararat poison an ex-boyfriend, Suthisak Poonkwan.

Sararat was also ordered to pay Siriporn’s family two million baht ($57,667; £45,446) in compensation.

Cyanide starves the body’s cells of oxygen, which can induce heart attacks. Early symptoms include dizziness, shortness of breath and vomiting.

It can lead to lung injury, coma and death within seconds when consumed in large amounts, but even small doses can still be very harmful.

Its use in Thailand is heavily regulated and those found to have unauthorised access face up two years in jail.

Tensions at the French mass rape trial burst into the open on Wednesday when Dominique Pelicot’s daughter Caroline shouted at her father from across the courtroom that he would “die alone like a dog”.

Caroline Darian, 45, has repeatedly said she is convinced her father drugged and abused her after semi-naked photos of her asleep were found on his laptop.

He has denied abusing her but has admitted drugging his wife Gisèle for a decade and recruiting men online to rape her in their home when she was unconscious.

Dominique Pelicot and 50 other men have been on trial since September, and a verdict is expected on 20 December.

During an emotional day in court in Avignon, Gisèle Pelicot’s lawyers gave their closing arguments, describing the historic nature of the trial and paying tribute to her courage in waiving her anonymity to bring the mass rape trial into the open.

In her statements to the court Caroline spoke of her anguish at what she says are persistent lies by her father.

Earlier this week, with a voice full of emotion, she told the court her life had “stopped” when police first showed her photos from her father’s laptop in 2020.

On Wednesday, Dominique Pelicot was given a chance to address his daughter while taking the stand for the final time in this trial.

The main defendant said he most wished he still had Caroline’s support.

“Some may laugh but it’s my daughter I wish I could look at in the face. It hurts to see her like this,” he said, sitting in a glass box only metres away from his daughter and the rest of his family.

“I would love to see her, I would love to talk to her,” he added. As his voice faltered, Caroline’s rose: “I will never come see you. Never. You will die alone like a dog,” she shouted.

“We all die alone,” he replied. “You especially,” she hit back.

It was the last public exchange between a father and daughter who by all accounts had had, for many years, a loving and close relationship.

Mr Pelicot recalled visiting her in hospital when she was recovering from surgery as a child so he could hold her and comfort her, and shared memories of her teenage years.

When he repeated that he would always love her even if she had stopped loving him, she looked ahead silently, tears streaming down her face – but did not respond.

It was only later, when the session ended, that she approached the box her father sat in and shouted: “You had two months [to tell the truth]!”

During questioning, Mr Pelicot also stated that he was a sex addict and that getting found out by police in November 2020 had “unburdened him”.

He denied that his crimes against his wife had been sparked by an inferiority complex or by a desire for revenge for an affair she had in the 1980s.

Asked what he thought about chemical submission – drugging someone for the purposes of coercion or assault – he answered: “It’s crap. It annihilates everything. It should never be done.”

Mr Pelicot’s statements were followed by closing arguments from Gisèle Pelicot’s legal team.

Lawyers for the 50 other defendants will give their own closing arguments from next week. They are expected to explore more deeply the defence that many of the men cannot be guilty because they did not realise Ms Pelicot was unconscious and therefore did not “know” they were raping her.

Over almost three hours Ms Pelicot’s lawyers, Antoine Camus and Stéphane Babonneau, retold the horrific story of Dominique Pelicot’s crimes, peppering their account with literary references.

“Everyone contributed to this monstrosity on their own level, and allowed a woman’s ordeal to go on. It’s the banality of evil of [philosopher] Hannah Arendt,” said Mr Camus.

They pleaded with the judges to hand down sentences that reflected the extent of the suffering of Gisèle Pelicot and her family.

Mr Camus said he was aware of the “expectations and hopes in this room and beyond” for the trial, which he said he described as historic, because “we badly, urgently want and need it to be”.

Leaning heavily on the notion of free will, he dismissed the defence’s argument that many of the men who allegedly raped Ms Pelicot did so because they were intimidated, manipulated or tricked by her husband. “Manipulation is not hypnosis,” he said.

The fact they were all aware that Mr Pelicot was “recruiting” many other men too should be taken into account by the judges, he added.

“Everyone who came into that house of horrors knew that others had come before him and others would follow,” Mr Camus said.

His colleague painted a devastating picture of Ms Pelicot’s life since her husband’s crimes had become known.

Stéphane Babonneau then described what had led Ms Pelicot – who by then was living in a small village under her maiden name – to give up her anonymity and open the trial to the public and the media.

It was in 2023, he said, when French media began reporting on the Pelicot case using pseudonyms that “a feeling of rebellion started to take hold of Gisèle Pelicot”.

“She decided to take back control of her life. The moment had come for shame to change sides.”

The will to stop hiding had awoken in her, he said, because she hadn’t done anything wrong. And she thought the details of her case and the videos of the alleged assaults would help expose the reality of rape.

“For her story to be useful and to help other women she understood she had to give up the anonymity that had served her for years,” Mr Babonneau explained. “She had to accept she would forever be the victim of the Mazan rapes.”

The lawyer also urged judges not to accept that the defendants had made a “mistake” when – as some have said – they raped Ms Pelicot involuntarily or “out of stupidity or ignorance”.

“If you accept the right to make a mistake, what will stop another man tomorrow from saying that when a woman told him ‘no’ he actually understood ‘yes’? That he also made a mistake?”

“I ask you to reject the right to make mistakes which would put society in danger – and at the risk of seeing more Gisèle Pelicots,” Mr Babonneau said.

He ended by paying tribute to Ms Pelicot and said the trial would be a “legacy” for future generations: “They will hear the name Gisèle Pelicot, they will hear about her courage and about the price she paid.”

Turning to look at Ms Pelicot, he said: “You did your job. You went beyond what was expected of you.”

“Now, pass on the torch to the others to carry on the fight you never chose.”

Gisèle Pelicot, to his right, wiped her eyes.

The family of renowned pandemic fundraiser Captain Sir Tom Moore damaged public trust in charities by refusing to donate any of the £1.4m received from his book deal, a long-awaited report has found.

The Charity Commission said his daughter and son-in-law displayed a “pattern of behaviour” in which they benefitted personally from the Captain Tom Foundation and people “would understandably feel misled”.

The World War Two veteran became a household name during the first Covid-19 lockdown, by walking up and down his driveway in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire.

The £38.9m raised by Capt Sir Tom for NHS Charities Together, as a result of his efforts, did not form part of the commission’s inquiry, and all of that sum went to NHS charities.

Capt Sir Tom’s family said they had been treated “unfairly and unjustly”.

“The charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before self,” said Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth.

“The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their personal interests, and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve.”

Mr Holdsworth said there were repeated instances of a “blurring of boundaries between private and charitable interests” and that Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore benefitted significantly.

“Together the failings amount to misconduct and-or mismanagement,” he said.

He added its report had found “repeated failures of governance and integrity”, and that its inquiry had been fair, balanced and independent.

In July 2023, the Captain Tom Foundation announced it was not actively seeking donations or making payments, but the foundation has not been closed down.

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered as a grant-making charity two months after the veteran’s walk began, and celebrities including Sir David Beckham and Dame Judy Dench later helped to promote its various fundraisers.

The father-of-two died aged 100 in February 2021, with coronavirus.

His son-in-law Mr Ingram-Moore became a trustee of the foundation that same month, and Sir Capt Tom’s daughter – Mrs Ingram-Moore – became interim chief executive later that year.

The couple’s roles came into question in June 2022, when the commission launched a statutory inquiry to determine if they had benefitted privately at the charity’s expense.

The regulator’s findings showed that Club Nook, a private firm set up by the Ingram-Moores in April 2020, was paid an advance of £1.47m for Sir Capt Tom’s three books, including his best-selling autobiography, Tomorrow Will be a Good Day.

The publisher Penguin, and promoter Carver PR, said the family gave repeated assurances that part of the advance would be used to set up and fund the foundation.

In addition, a press release, various marketing materials and the prologue of Sir Capt Sir Tom’s memoir, all stated that the books would be used to support or raise money for the foundation.

However, to date the charity has not received any money from the publishing agreement.

In 2022, the commission said the inquiry twice asked Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore to “rectify matters by making a donation to charity” but “on both occasions they declined”.

The publications were “a purely commercial endeavour” and “had damaged public trust” in charities, the report concluded.

Between 2020 and 2021, Capt Sir Tom acted as a judge for the Virgin Media Local Legends Awards and was personally paid £10,000.

The following year, his daughter was approached to be a judge and signed an ambassador agreement with Virgin Media O2 while chief executive of the Captain Tom Foundation, for which she was paid £18,000.

The subsequent Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards included the charity’s logo on its awards plaque.

She had already been made interim chief executive at the charity, on an annual salary of £85,000.

However, the report said there was no record that she informed the charity trustees when she entered into the financial arrangement with Virgin Media.

The commission said it did not agree with Mrs Ingram-Moore’s assertion the work was undertaken in a personal capacity.

It found this created a conflict of interest, and her failure to avoid or manage this situation “amounted to misconduct and-or mismanagement”, adding this also meant the payment she received was an “unauthorised benefit” to her husband, who was a trustee at the time.

In 2021, the Ingram-Moores received approval from the council to build a Captain Tom Foundation building beside their home, after referencing the charity’s name and number “numerous times” in the planning application.

However, the resulting building, which contained a spa pool and home cinema, was described by council enforcement officer Richard Proctor as “wholly unauthorised” and the family was forced to demolish it in February.

The Charity Commission found the couple failed to consult the trustees about the spa complex, which suggested “they were using the charity and its name inappropriately for their private benefit”.

The Ingram-Moores told the inquiry the inclusion of the charity’s name in the initial planning application was an error, claiming they were busy with “global media work” at the time, but they did intend to use the building for charitable purposes.

Other findings contained in the report showed:

• Mrs Ingram-Moore was “very much involved in discussions around setting her salary” and said to trustee Stephen Jones that “her expectations were in the region of £150,000 per annum”. Her claim that she was not offered a six-figure salary was described as “disingenuous” by the inquiry
• She “purposely” removed the conflicts of interest clause from her employment contract with the charity, telling Mr Jones: “This is not a legal requirement… I will not be doing anything to conflict with all my roles but I cannot be in a position to request authority at every turn, my life would grind to a halt.”
• Since the Ingram-Moores’ company, Club Nook, owned the Sir Capt Tom trademarks, trustees had to consult with them when it wanted to use his name for charity purposes, including by asking for permission to sell printed mugs

In July, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore were disqualified from being a trustee or holding a senior management position in charities for a period of eight and 10 years respectively.

A month earlier, they had described the inquiry as a “harrowing ordeal” and a “relentless pursuit”.

Mr Holdsworth urged the Ingram-Moores to “follow through on the commitment that was made and donate a substantial amount to the charity”.

He said it was up to the remaining trustee whether to take legal action and the Commission “stood ready to provide advice as they considered that”.

In a statement, the Ingram-Moores said they were treated “unfairly and unjustly” in the report.

They said the two-year inquiry has taken a “serious toll” on the family’s health, “unfairly tarnishing” their name.

They described the process as “unjust and excessive” and that the charities watchdog had a “predetermined agenda”.

“True accountability demands transparency, not selective storytelling,” the statement said, adding that they “never took a penny” from public donations.

“I felt really scared to be honest,” says James, describing an incident on Snapchat that left him questioning whether it was safe to go to school.

The Australian boy, 12, had had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.

Almost instantly, his phone “started blowing up” with a string of violent messages.

“One of them sounded like he was probably 17,” James tells the BBC. “He sent me videos of him with a machete… he was waving it around. Then there were voice messages saying that they were going to catch me and stab me.”

James – not his real name – first joined Snapchat when he was 10, after a classmate suggested everyone in their friendship group get the app. But after telling his parents about his cyberbullying experience, which was ultimately resolved by his school, James deleted his account.

His experience is a cautionary tale that shows why the Australian government’s proposed social media ban on children under 16 is necessary, says his mother Emma, who is also using a pseudonym.

The laws, which were tabled in parliament’s lower house on Thursday, have been billed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as “world-leading”.

But while many parents have applauded the move, some experts have questioned whether kids should – or even can – be barred from accessing social media, and what the adverse effects of doing so may be.

Albanese says the ban – which will cover platforms such as X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram – is about protecting kids from the “harms” of social media.

“This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood. We want parents to have peace of mind,” he said on Thursday.

The new legislation provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page document, which is expected to head to the Senate next week, is sparse on detail.

Instead, it will be up to the nation’s internet regulator – the eSafety Commissioner – to hash out how to implement and enforce the rules, which will not come into effect for at least 12 months after legislation is passed.

According to the bill, the ban will apply to all children under 16 and that there will be no exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.

Tech companies will face penalties of up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7) if they do not comply, but there will be exemptions for platforms which are able to create “low-risk services” deemed suitable for kids. Criteria for this threshold are yet to be set.

Messaging services and gaming sites, however, will not be restricted, as will some sites that can be accessed without an account like YouTube, which has prompted questions over how regulators will determine what is and isn’t a social media platform in a fast-moving landscape.

A group representing the interests of tech companies such as Meta, Snapchat and X in Australia has dismissed the ban as “a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges”.

Such legislation could push kids into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet”, Digital Industry Group Inc says – a fear also expressed by some experts.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged the gargantuan task her office will face when enforcing the ban, given “technology change is always going to outpace policy”.

“It will always be fluid, and this is why regulators like eSafety have to be nimble,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

But Ms Inman Grant has also raised concerns about the central idea behind the government’s policy, which is that there’s a causal link between social media and declining mental health.

“I would say that the evidence base is not settled at all,” she said, pointing to research from her own office which found that some of the most vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ or First Nations teenagers, “feel more themselves online than they do in the real world”.

This is a sentiment echoed by Lucas Lane, 15, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This [ban] destroys… my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager tells the BBC.

Ms Inman Grant would rather see tech companies clean up their platforms, as well as more investment in education tools to help young people stay safe online. She uses the analogy of teaching children to swim, rather than banning them from the water.

“We don’t fence the ocean… but we do create protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach important lessons from a young age,” she told parliament earlier this year.

But parents like Emma see it differently.

“Should we really be wasting our time trying to help kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies just want them on them all the time?” she says.

“Or should we just allow them to be kids and learn how to be sociable outside with each other, and then start these discussions later on?”

Amy Friedlander, a mother of three from the Wait Mate movement – which encourages parents to delay giving their kids smartphones – agrees.

“We can’t ignore all the positives that technology has brought into our lives. There are huge upsides, but what we haven’t really considered is the impact it is having on brains which aren’t ready for it.”

Over 100 Australian academics have criticised the ban as “too blunt an instrument” and argued that it goes against UN advice which calls on governments to ensure young people have “safe access” to digital environments.

It has also failed to win the backing of a bipartisan parliamentary committee that’s been examining the impact of social media on adolescents. Instead, the committee recommended that tech giants face tougher regulations.

To address some of those concerns, the government says it will eventually introduce “digital duty of care” laws, which will make it a legal obligation for tech companies to prioritise user safety.

Joanne Orlando, a researcher in digital behaviour, argues that while a ban “could be part of a strategy, it absolutely can’t be the whole strategy”.

She says “the biggest piece of the puzzle” should be educating kids to think critically about the content they see on their feeds and how they use social media.

The government has already spent A$6m since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” to try and do just that. However, research suggests that many young Australians aren’t receiving regular lessons.

Ms Orlando and other experts warn there are also significant hurdles to making the age-verification technology – which is required to enforce the ban – effective and safe, given the “enormous risks” associated with potentially housing the identification documents of every Australian online.

The government has said it is aiming to solve that challenge through age-verification trials, and hopes to table a report by mid-next year. It has promised that privacy concerns will be front and centre, but offered little detail on what kind of technology will actually be tested.

In its advice, the eSafety Commissioner has floated the idea of using a third-party service to anonymise a user’s ID before it is passed on to any age verification sites, to “preserve” their privacy.

However, Ms Orlando remains sceptical. “I can’t think of any technology that exists at this point that can pull this off,” she tells the BBC.

Australia is by no means the first country to try to restrict how young people access certain websites or platforms online.

In 2011, South Korea passed its “shutdown law” which prevented children under 16 from playing internet games between 22:30 and 6:00, but the rules – which faced backlash – were later scrapped citing the need to “respect the rights of youths”.

More recently France introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent. Research indicated almost half of users were able to circumvent the ban using a simple VPN.

A law in the US state of Utah – which was similar to Australia’s – ran into a different issue: it was blocked by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional.

Albanese has conceded that Australia’s proposal may not be foolproof, and if it passes the parliament, it would be subject to a review.

“We all know technology moves fast and some people will try to find ways around these new laws but that is not a reason to ignore the responsibility that we have,” he told lawmakers.

But for parents like Emma and Ms Friedlander – who have lobbied for the changes – it’s the message that the ban sends which matters most.

“For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out socially,” Ms Friedlander says.

“We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”

James says that since quitting Snapchat he’s found himself spending more time outside with friends.

And he hopes that the new laws could enable more kids like him to “get out and do the things they love” instead of feeling pressured to be online.

Australia’s debate over capping foreign student numbers is “not over” despite a controversial bill unexpectedly losing support, a top industry body says.

The bill, part of efforts to slash overall migration to Australia, had been opposed by most universities who say it would damage the higher education sector and its global reputation.

The government argued the legislation was needed to make the industry more sustainable and ease pressure on housing, and it was expected to easily pass with opposition support this week.

However in a surprise eleventh-hour move, Australia’s opposition leader said his coalition would vote against the bill as it didn’t go far enough.

Though some universities have expressed support at the bill’s apparent demise, they also say it extends the uncertainty surrounding the industry – which is worth about A$50bn (£25.7bn, $32.7bn) to the economy.

Luke Sheehy, head of Universities Australia, told the BBC the news brought “no sense of relief” for him.

“I just knew that we would be looking at international students [used] as cannon fodder in a phoney war on migration right through to the election now,” said Mr Sheehy, whose organisation advocates for 39 universities.

The cap proposed limiting new enrolments at 270,000 for 2025 – a significant cut on the number in 2024. It had been due to come into effect in just six weeks.

Some universities have made job cuts and rejected student applications in anticipation of the new laws, and the BBC was told foreign students were already choosing to study elsewhere as a result of the reduced confidence in the sector.

The legislation, currently before the Senate, has not been formally withdrawn by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government but it cannot pass without the support of the main opposition Liberal-National coalition or the Greens, who also oppose it.

Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton called the bill “a dog’s breakfast” and vowed to introduce “deeper cuts” if he wins the upcoming election, due by May.

The Greens, on the other hand, described the bill “dog whistling that shamefully scapegoated international students for the housing crisis they did not cause”.

The government has accused Mr Dutton of hypocrisy, arguing he has often talked “tough” on cutting immigration to the country, which has reached record levels in recent years.

The expected failure of the bill would mean an existing visa policy, which has been widely accused of exacerbating problems by funnelling most international students to a select few city-based universities, will remain in place.

The Group of Eight (Go8) – a body which represents Australia’s top ranked universities – said the bill would have hurt students and staff and that common sense had prevailed.

But the industry has been left scrambling again, with only a few months left until the 2025 academic year begins. Observers say some universities could now receive a spike in students when they had a expected a cut, and others – predominantly in regional locations – will no longer expect as many, putting them under greater financial pressure.

“The most devastating part of this discussion is that we still don’t have a resolution,” Mr Sheehy said.

“We’re nowhere closer to providing the certainty, stability and growth the government promised us all those many months ago when they proposed caps.”

High-tech equipment made by a UK firm worth $2.1m (£1.6m) has been sold to companies in Russia connected to the military, customs documents seen by BBC News suggest.

The documents indicate the British-made camera lenses were shipped by a company registered in Kyrgyzstan, apparently run by a swimwear model.

The UK manufacturer, Beck Optronic Solutions, which has worked on British Challenger 2 tanks and F35 fighter jets, told us it had not breached sanctions, had no dealings with Russia or Kyrgyzstan, and was unaware of the shipments.

Our investigation raises questions about the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on Russia since the war in Ukraine began.

The trail led us to Valeria Baigascina, a 25-year-old, originally from the central Asian state of Kazakhstan but now living in Belarus. A part-time model, she posts regularly about her jet-set lifestyle on social media. In the past two years she has visited Dubai, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

Her social media gave no indication she was also the director of a firm which had channelled millions of dollars’ worth of equipment to sanctioned companies in Russia, as our search of customs documents revealed.

According to Belarusian registration details, Ms Baigascina was the founder and director of a company called Rama Group LLC. Set up in February 2023, it is registered to an address in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan – 2,300 miles (3,713 km) from her home in Belarus.

Both countries are former Soviet states with strong trading links to Russia. Belarus remains Moscow’s strongest ally in Europe.

Trade data shows that since sanctions on Russia were introduced in February 2022, UK exports to Kyrgyzstan have increased by more than 300%. Experts suspect some goods are actually destined for Moscow.

The customs documents obtained by the BBC suggest that Rama Group made two shipments to Moscow of high-end optics that can be used in missiles, tanks and aircraft.

The equipment is listed on the customs form as being made by Beck Optronic Solutions in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The company manufactures high-precision lenses used in targeting and surveillance systems.

Though some of its lenses are used in healthcare and engineering, Beck’s website details extensive military and defence applications.

The lenses and optical technology sold by Beck Optronics are specifically listed as goods that either cannot be legally exported to Russia, or that need permission from UK authorities before any sale can take place.

The BBC has identified, through customs documents, a total of six shipments of products said to have been made by Beck with a total value of $2.1m (£1.6m) and transferred to Moscow through Rama and another intermediary company, Shisan LLC.

In December 2023 and January 2024, Rama Group made its two shipments to Moscow listing them as “rotating part of camera”. These shipments went to Sol Group, a company based in Smolensk, 200 miles (320km) south-west of Moscow, which has been sanctioned by the US.

It is not clear what international route the goods took – the documents indicate some of the shipments may actually have originated in Thailand.

Shisan LLC, another Kyrgyz company, was responsible for four further shipments of Beck Optronics’ products worth $1.5m (£1.1m).

Two of those shipments involved “short-wave infrared camera lens” and went to the Ural Optical & Mechanical Plant, which makes bomb-aiming equipment and is also sanctioned because of its links to the Russian military.

Rama Group and Shisan share the same address in Bishkek – a modern five-storey block in a prosperous part of the city. However, when we visited we were told Valeria Baigascina was out of the country on a business trip.

We found her number through her social media posts and put our allegations to her.

Ms Baigascina said she was the founder of the company but had sold it in May. She denied the allegations, saying that when she had owned it, “nothing like that was supplied”. She then hung up.

Later, by email, she told us the accusations were “ridiculous” and based on “false information”.

Our research shows that in May this year she sold Rama Group to her best friend, Angelina Zhurenko, who runs a lingerie business in Kazakhstan.

Ms Zhurenko told us: “Trading activities are carried out exclusively within the framework of the current legislation of Kyrgyzstan. The company does not violate any prohibitions. Any other information is false.”

The director of the other intermediary company, Shisan, is listed as Evgeniy Anatolyevich Matveev. We put our allegations to him by email.

He told us that our information was “false” and that he ran “a business supplying exclusively civilian goods manufactured in Asian countries”.

He continued: “This does not contradict the laws of the state in which I work, and has nothing to do with US sanctions, because it is impossible to prohibit free trade in Asian goods available for sale and delivery.”

There’s no evidence that Beck Optronics knew about these shipments or that the final destination of the lenses was Russia.

The company told us it had nothing to do with the shipments: “Beck has not shipped anything contrary to UK export controls or any sanctions applying in the UK. It has had no dealings with any party or company in Russia, Kyrgyzstan or Thailand, was not aware that any shipments might ultimately be destined for any of these destinations and has not shipped anything to these destinations.”

It believes some of the equipment listed wasn’t even made by the company and that customs documents may have been falsified.

But these alleged exports are part of a much bigger picture involving shipments from a number of sources.

Analysis of customs documents by the Washington-based security think tank C4ADS suggest that Shisan completed 373 shipments via Kyrgyzstan to Russia between July and December 2023.

Of these, 288 contained goods that fall under customs codes for “high-priority battlefield items”.

Over the same six-month period, Rama Group completed a total of 1,756 shipments to Russia. Of these, 1,355 were for items on the “high-priority battlefield items” list.

Its most recent shipments, including electronics by US and UK companies, went to a Russian company named Titan-Mikro, which has been subject to US sanctions since May 2023 for operating within Russia’s military sector.

“When they sell this technology to a client who is potentially a Russian end-user, they fully should understand that this is to kill people,” says Olena Tregub from NAKO, Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption organisation.

She warns that the holes in the sanctions regime are costing lives.

“Without those technologies, those weapons would not fly. The brain of those ballistic missiles, the brain of those kamikaze drones, are made of Western technology,” she says.

International authorities are aware of Kyrgyzstan’s role in sanctions evasion.

In April, UK’s foreign secretary at the time, David Cameron, travelled to Bishkek and urged the Kyrgyz authorities to do more to tighten their sanctions’ compliance.

The Kyrgyz president expressed confidence that Lord Cameron’s official visit to his country would “give new impetus to multifaceted co-operation between Kyrgyzstan and the UK”.

David O’Sullivan, the EU’s Special Envoy for the Implementation of Sanctions told us that efforts continue to shut down “illicit procurement networks”, and that “companies are required to undertake due diligence checks to understand who is the final end-user and where ‘battlefield items’ end up ultimately”.

They’ve sold more albums than any other K-pop girl band last year, have tens of millions of fans worldwide and are arguably one of South Korea’s hottest acts.

What the members of NewJeans aren’t however, are workers, according to the government.

The country’s Ministry of Employment and Labor on Wednesday dismissed claims of workplace harrassment against a member of the group, saying celebrities were not seen as workers under the country’s labour law – and were therefore not entitled to the same rights.

The decision has drawn its fair share of scorn – and unsurprise – with some saying it is just the latest to come from an industry known for its punishing schedules and intense competition.

This is the latest scandal to hit NewJeans, which has for months been embroiled in a public feud with its record label, Ador.

With slick pop songs like Super Shy, OMG and Supernatural, NewJeans were the eighth biggest-selling act in the world last year, and were nominated for best group at this year’s MTV Awards.

Formed by label Ador in 2022, the group has five members – Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein – whose ages range from 16 to 20.

The incident started after 20-year-old Hanni and the other four members of the band raised concerns about their treatment by Ador during an impromptu YouTube livestream on 11 September.

In the band’s YouTube video, which has since been deleted, they made claims of workplace harassment, among others, which culminated in Hanni saying she would testify in a hearing about bullying in the music industry.

The Vietnamese-Australian singer, whose real name is Pham Ngoc Han, told lawmakers that she felt “the company hated us”.

She described how senior members of Hybe ignored her and her bandmates, and gave them cold shoulder. She also alleged that employees of the agency bad-mouthed NewJeans on internal communication app and asked a journalist to downplay the group’s record sales in one article.

Hybe had previously denied the accusations. The CEO of Ador, which is a subsidiary of Hybe, said at the hearing that she would “listen more closely” to her artists.

Her allegations prompted fans to file a petition about workplace bullying to the government.

But on Wednesday, South Korea’s labour ministry rejected these claims, saying given the content and nature of the management contract signed by Hanni, she is not regarded as a worker under the country’s Labour Standards Act.

“Individuals must meet the criteria under the Labour Standards Act… to be considered workers. This includes having fixed working hours and providing labour under the employer’s direct supervision and control. Celebrities, including singers, are typically classified as independent contractors,” Chunghwan Choi, senior partner of Yulchon law firm in Seoul explained.

The government also cites the nature of Hanni’s income, which is deemed to be “profit sharing, rather than wages”, according to local reports, adding that she pays business income tax rather than employment income tax.

One expert has called the response “utterly unfair and yet unsurprising”.

The work for K-pop idols is “emotionally and physically exhausting”, according to her, as they work “incredibly long hours, often seven days a week for months in a row…[with] no clearly defined periods of rest”, says CedarBough Saeji, Assistant Professor of Korean and East Asian Studies at Pusan National University in South Korea.

“Exploitation of the workers is accepted because they are not regular employees and there is no labour union, or clearly we can now see, no governmental agency to advocate for humane working conditions for them,” she argues.

There are currently no specific laws in South Korea that provide protections for the working rights of celebrities or artists, says Mr Choi, saying that this “underscores the urgent need for reforms to address longstanding issues in the entertainment industry”.

One measure that could be put into place to safeguard the working rights of artists is something similar to the Talent Agency Act in Hollywood, which requires talent agencies to obtain licenses and prohibits unfair or exploitative contracts, adds Mr Choi.

However, he adds that “while there have been discussions about implementing laws similar to the Talent Agency Act, no such legislation has been enacted yet”.

On Wednesday, New Jeans fans rallied under the hashtag “IdolsAreWorkers” in support of the band.

Others pointed out that the decision had a legal basis, as celebrities were not technically seen as workers under the law, but called for greater reforms in the industry.

“I get what they’re saying about the role not qualifying for the legal defintion of workplace harrassment, but this just shows the need for reform in the K-pop industry”, said one user on X.

Hanni has yet to comment on the government’s decision.

Hybe, which represents massive K-pop groups such as BTS and Seventeen, is South Korea’s largest music firm.

South Korea’s entertainment industry is known for its high-pressure environment, where celebrities are held to strict standards over their appearances and behaviour.