Islamist rebels once exiled to a mountainous pocket of the Syrian countryside now roam the streets of central Aleppo, taking pictures below its ancient citadel and tearing down symbols of President Bashar al-Assad’s rule.

The surprise offensive, in which insurgents seized territory across north-west Syria, appears to have dramatically shifted the balance of power in Aleppo, and marks the largest challenge to Assad’s control in years.

Fighters from militant Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized much of the city in a sudden rout of Syrian army forces. A reporter with opposition television channel Aleppo Today showed uniformed militants in an empty central plaza. A man who said the fighters had freed him from prison wept on camera.

Footage showed people tearing down a statue of Bassel al-Assad, the brother of Syria’s ruler, from atop a figure of a horse, to the sound of celebratory gunfire. Turkey’s Anadolu news agency said Syrian forces withdrew from several key locations including the civilian airport, shuttering it before ceding control to Kurdish militant groups, as Islamist insurgents closed in.

Forces spearheaded by HTS also seized an important military base to the south, while taking control of Saraqib, a strategic location on the highway to the capital, Damascus. Turkish-backed Syrian rebels launched their own operation against Kurdish militants and Syrian government forces in an effort to seize a military airport to the east of Aleppo, as swaths of territory rapidly fell under rebel control.

The sweeping offensive appeared to take forces loyal to Assad by surprise, as well as his longtime backers in Moscow and Tehran. Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the Syrian military general command continued to fight insurgents in Aleppo, amid reports of both Russian and Syrian airstrikes around the city.

The Syrian military said the overwhelming number of fighters “and the multiplicity of battlefronts prompted our armed forces to carry out a redeployment operation aimed at strengthening the defence lines in order to absorb the attack, preserve the lives of civilians and soldiers, and prepare for a counterattack”.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the situation in Aleppo “an attack on Syrian sovereignty,” adding “we are in favour of the Syrian authorities bringing order to the area”.

Political officials from the Syrian Salvation Government, an HTS affiliate that nominally rules Idlib, quickly issued a statement condemning Russian airstrikes, but calling Moscow “a potential partner in building a bright future for Syria”.

The sudden insurgent victory in Aleppo symbolised a dramatic shift in control of key urban centres in Syria, and an unexpected challenge to its president, long seen as having crushed the uprising against him. Assad’s fractured control of Syria had appeared secure enough that his former regional foes, notably Saudi Arabia, had begun to re-establish diplomatic relations with Damascus.

Turkish officials, who had also discussed normalising relations with Assad despite supporting rebel forces, denied any involvement in the Aleppo offensive. “We will not take any action that could cause a wave of migration,” said the foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, amid reports from the UN that the fighting had internally displaced some 14,000 people.

The militants appeared to enter Aleppo with ease, in total contrast to the fierce street battles for control of every block that engulfed the ancient urban centre 12 years ago. Syrian regime forces seized full control of Aleppo in 2016, relying heavily on Russian airpower and Iranian military support to wrestle the country’s former industrial centre back under Assad’s control.

The fall of Aleppo to Syrian government control previously marked a key moment of defeat for the country’s armed opposition, and a watershed moment in a bloody civil war that followed a popular uprising against Assad in 2011.

“No one expected Aleppo to be taken, which means there were no real defensive lines within the city. Once they got there it seems like it was all open,” said Jerome Drevon, of the International Crisis Group.

Drevon pointed to the insurgents’ years-long efforts to formalise and hone their fighting forces, allowing them to overwhelm far less organised Syrian government fighters. “I think the regime didn’t expect such a quick move, the operation started just a few days ago,” he said.

The insurgents’ sudden newfound control of much of Aleppo quickly drew questions about their ability to hold territory, and what an expanded fiefdom led by HTS’s leader, known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, could look like. Jolani was designated by the US state department as a terrorist in 2013 and retains a $10m bounty on his head, but has de-facto ruled Idlib province for several years.

While the militants in Idlib have attempted to demonstrate their ability to govern, they have also stood accused of crushing dissent while relying heavily on dwindling international aid to meet civilians’ needs. As fighters stormed Aleppo, humanitarians such as Sudipta Kumar of ActionAid warned many were suffering in Idlib.

“Thousands of families now face a freezing winter without anywhere to live,” she said.

Analyst Sam Heller, of the Century Foundation, said the insurgents’ ability to hold on to their territorial gains depended on whether Damascus and their allies were able to mount a counter-attack.

“Certainly some areas in the Aleppo countryside could be difficult for HTS and their allies to hold on to if they come under really withering air strikes or artillery fire,” he said. Insurgent rule inside Aleppo itself, he added, could prove far more difficult for Assad and his allies to repel in the long term.

“It’s not clear what kind of capabilities Damascus is now able to bring to bear and mobilise from elsewhere in Syria, also critically how much capacity Russia now has in Syria, given its current involvement in Ukraine, which has diverted some of their forces to that front.”

While opponents of Assad’s rule elsewhere in Syria and in exile will now look to Aleppo, with the potential that the insurgency could fuel uprisings elsewhere, Drevon doubted that Jolani and his allies would be willing to cede power to a conventional governing authority.

The militants were more likely to focus on expanding the field of battle for now, he said, adding: “They have been waiting for this battle for a long time.”

The Israeli military has killed a charity worker employed by the World Central Kitchen in Gaza, saying the person targeted in the attack was a Hamas militant involved in the 7 October attacks.

The official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that three employees of World Central Kitchen were killed when an Israeli strike targeted a civilian vehicle in southern Gaza.

The Israeli military did not offer any evidence and Reuters could not independently verify the man’s identity or whether he took part in the attack on Israel last year.

There was no immediate comment from World Central Kitchen on the Israeli statement. Hamas was yet to respond. Medics in the territory said that five people were killed in the strike, which they said targeted a vehicle east of Khan Younis.

At Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, a woman allegedly held up an employee badge bearing the WCK logo, the word “contractor” and the name of one of the men said to have been killed in the strike. A heap of belongings – burnt phones, a watch and stickers with the WCK logo – lay on the hospital floor.

In a later attack in Khan Younis, medics said at least nine Palestinians were killed when an Israeli airstrike hit a car near a crowd receiving flour. They said it was a vehicle used by security personnel tasked with overseeing aid deliveries into Gaza.

An Israeli strike in April on a WCK convoy killed seven of its workers, most of them foreigners. The Israeli military said that was a mistake.

The Israeli military rejects allegations that it deliberately targets civilians in its Gaza campaign, accusing Hamas of operating from civilian facilities and using civilians as shields, which the group denies.

Overall, at least 32 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes across the territory overnight and into Saturday, Gaza medics said. Among those, at least seven died in an Israeli strike on a house in central Gaza City, according to a statement from the Gaza Civil Defense and WAFA early on Saturday.

News of the attack came after an Israeli aircraft struck Hezbollah weapons smuggling sites along Syria’s border with Lebanon, testing a fragile, days-old ceasefire that halted months of fighting in Lebanon.

Israel said it hit sites used to smuggle weapons from Syria to Lebanon after the ceasefire took effect, which the military said was a violation of its terms.

There was no immediate comment from Syrian authorities or activists monitoring the conflict in that country. Hezbollah also did not immediately comment. Israeli aircraft have struck Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, citing ceasefire violations, several times since the truce began on Wednesday.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah does not address the war in Gaza, where fighting rages on.

The truce between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah, brokered by the US and France, calls for an initial two-month ceasefire in which the militants are to withdraw north of Lebanon’s Litani River and Israeli forces are to return to their side of the border.

The repeated bursts of violence – with no reports of serious casualties – reflected the uneasy nature of the ceasefire that has otherwise appeared to hold. While Israel has accused Hezbollah of violating the ceasefire, Lebanon has also accused Israel of the same in the days since it took effect.

Many of the 1.2 million people in Lebanon displaced by the conflict have been returning south to their homes, despite warnings by the Israeli and Lebanese militaries to stay away from certain areas.

The Israeli military has killed a charity worker employed by the World Central Kitchen in Gaza, saying the person targeted in the attack was a Hamas militant involved in the 7 October attacks.

The official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that three employees of World Central Kitchen were killed when an Israeli strike targeted a civilian vehicle in southern Gaza.

The Israeli military did not offer any evidence and Reuters could not independently verify the man’s identity or whether he took part in the attack on Israel last year.

There was no immediate comment from World Central Kitchen on the Israeli statement. Hamas was yet to respond. Medics in the territory said that five people were killed in the strike, which they said targeted a vehicle east of Khan Younis.

At Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, a woman allegedly held up an employee badge bearing the WCK logo, the word “contractor” and the name of one of the men said to have been killed in the strike. A heap of belongings – burnt phones, a watch and stickers with the WCK logo – lay on the hospital floor.

In a later attack in Khan Younis, medics said at least nine Palestinians were killed when an Israeli airstrike hit a car near a crowd receiving flour. They said it was a vehicle used by security personnel tasked with overseeing aid deliveries into Gaza.

An Israeli strike in April on a WCK convoy killed seven of its workers, most of them foreigners. The Israeli military said that was a mistake.

The Israeli military rejects allegations that it deliberately targets civilians in its Gaza campaign, accusing Hamas of operating from civilian facilities and using civilians as shields, which the group denies.

Overall, at least 32 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes across the territory overnight and into Saturday, Gaza medics said. Among those, at least seven died in an Israeli strike on a house in central Gaza City, according to a statement from the Gaza Civil Defense and WAFA early on Saturday.

News of the attack came after an Israeli aircraft struck Hezbollah weapons smuggling sites along Syria’s border with Lebanon, testing a fragile, days-old ceasefire that halted months of fighting in Lebanon.

Israel said it hit sites used to smuggle weapons from Syria to Lebanon after the ceasefire took effect, which the military said was a violation of its terms.

There was no immediate comment from Syrian authorities or activists monitoring the conflict in that country. Hezbollah also did not immediately comment. Israeli aircraft have struck Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, citing ceasefire violations, several times since the truce began on Wednesday.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah does not address the war in Gaza, where fighting rages on.

The truce between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah, brokered by the US and France, calls for an initial two-month ceasefire in which the militants are to withdraw north of Lebanon’s Litani River and Israeli forces are to return to their side of the border.

The repeated bursts of violence – with no reports of serious casualties – reflected the uneasy nature of the ceasefire that has otherwise appeared to hold. While Israel has accused Hezbollah of violating the ceasefire, Lebanon has also accused Israel of the same in the days since it took effect.

Many of the 1.2 million people in Lebanon displaced by the conflict have been returning south to their homes, despite warnings by the Israeli and Lebanese militaries to stay away from certain areas.

Meta is actively helping self-harm content to flourish on Instagram by failing to remove explicit images and encouraging those engaging with such content to befriend one another, according to a damning new study that found its moderation “extremely inadequate”.

Danish researchers created a private self-harm network on the social media platform, including fake profiles of people as young as 13 years old, in which they shared 85 pieces of self-harm-related content gradually increasing in severity, including blood, razor blades and encouragement of self-harm.

The aim of the study was to test Meta’s claim that it had significantly improved its processes for removing harmful content, which it says now uses artificial intelligence (AI). The tech company claims to remove about 99% of harmful content before it is reported.

But Digitalt Ansvar (Digital Accountability), an organisation that promotes responsible digital development, found that in the month-long experiment not a single image was removed.

When it created its own simple AI tool to analyse the content, it was able to automatically identify 38% of the self-harm images and 88% of the most severe. This, the company said, shows that Instagram has access to technology able to address the issue but “has chosen not to implement it effectively”.

The platform’s inadequate moderation, said Digitalt Ansvar, suggests that it is not complying with EU law.

The Digital Services Act requires large digital services to identify systemic risks, including foreseeable negative consequences on physical and mental wellbeing.

A Meta spokesperson said: “Content that encourages self-injury is against our policies and we remove this content when we detect it. In the first half of 2024, we removed more than 12m pieces related to suicide and self-injury on Instagram, 99% of which we proactively took down.

“Earlier this year, we launched Instagram Teen Accounts, which will place teenagers into the strictest setting of our sensitive content control, so they’re even less likely to be recommended sensitive content and in many cases we hide this content altogether.”

The Danish study, however, found that rather than attempt to shut down the self-harm network, Instagram’s algorithm was actively helping it to expand. The research suggested that 13-year-olds become friends with all members of the self-harm group after they were connected with one of its members.

This, the study said, “suggests that Instagram’s algorithm actively contributes to the formation and spread of self-harm networks”.

Speaking to the Observer, Ask Hesby Holm, chief executive of Digitalt Ansvar, said the company was shocked by the results, having thought that, as the images it shared increased in severity, they would set off alarm bells on the platform.

“We thought that when we did this gradually, we would hit the threshold where AI or other tools would recognise or identify these images,” he said. “But big surprise – they didn’t.”

He added: “That was worrying because we thought that they had some kind of machinery trying to figure out and identify this content.”

Failing to moderate self-harm images can result in “severe consequences”, he said. “This is highly associated with suicide. So if there’s nobody flagging or doing anything about these groups, they go unknown to parents, authorities, those who can help support.” Meta, he believes, does not moderate small private groups, such as the one his company created, in order to maintain high traffic and engagement. “We don’t know if they moderate bigger groups, but the problem is self-harming groups are small,” he said.

Lotte Rubæk, a leading psychologist who left Meta’s global expert group on suicide prevention in March after accusing it of “turning a blind eye” to harmful Instagram content, said while she was not surprised by the overall findings, she was shocked to see that they did not remove the most explicit content.

“I wouldn’t have thought that it would be zero out of 85 posts that they removed,” she said. “I hoped that it would be better.

“They have repeatedly said in the media that all the time they are improving their technology and that they have the best engineers in the world. This proves, even though on a small scale, that this is not true.”

Rubæk said Meta’s failure to remove images of self-harm from its platforms was “triggering” vulnerable young women and girls to further harm themselves and contributing to rising suicide figures.

Since she left the global expert group, she said the situation on the platform has only worsened, the impact of which is plain to see in her patients.

The issue of self-harm on Instagram, she said, is a matter of life and death for young children and teenagers. “And somehow that’s just collateral damage to them on the way to making money and profit on their platforms.”

A former Harrods director has claimed he was handed envelopes of cash by Mohamed Al Fayed as part of the billionaire’s plan to control and manipulate senior management and cover up alleged incidents of sexual abuse.

Jon Brilliant, who worked in Fayed’s private office for 18 months, claimed his former boss would sack those he could not control. Managers were let go or quit so often that a national newspaper began to publish a regular count, which reached 48 in 2005, he said.

Brilliant, who was 36 when he joined the firm in 2000, told BBC News he was one of those targeted by Fayed, who would offer him cash to try to compromise him.

He described surveillance and sackings of senior staff, in a culture designed to keep them from trusting or communicating with each another. “I 100% can see how the management structure and culture was set up to cover [Fayed’s abuse] up, mask it from people,” the BBC quoted him as saying.

Brilliant told the broadcaster Fayed plied him with envelopes full of cash – totalling about $50,000 (£39,000) – to try to control him. And that colleagues warned him Al Fayed was trying to get him to compromise himself.

“He was trying to get you to come back and say ‘Oh, I spent money on drugs or I spent money frolicking, doing something that I shouldn’t have been doing’, and that he would then use that information against you if you should ever turn on him … I am certainly aware of people who … succumbed to the temptation.”

Four other former directors have anonymously confirmed elements of Brilliant’s claims, BBC News reported. “He tried to own you. And ultimately, I got fired because I couldn’t be bought,” he said.

Brilliant said he was “horrified” when he first heard the allegations Fayed had abused hundreds of women. The former Harrods and Fulham FC owner is accused of sexual offences against dozens of women and girls, but was never charged while he was alive. He died last year aged 94.

On Thursday, the Metropolitan police said it had launched an investigation into more than five people who may have “facilitated” his alleged crimes. An internal review is also being carried out into how the force handled claims about Fayed while he was alive.

Since the latest publicity around the case, 90 alleged victims have contacted the Metropolitan police to say they fell prey to him, in addition to 21 alleged victims who had already contacted the force.

The youngest of the 90 is thought to have been 13 years old at the time she was reportedly abused, and the alleged crimes include rape and sexual assault.

Fayed bought Harrods for £615m in 1985 and sold it to the Qatari royal family for a reported £1.5bn in 2010.

Harrods has not responded to a request for comment. It has previously said: “This was a shameful period of the business’s history, however, the Harrods of today is unrecognisable to Harrods under [Fayed’s] ownership.”

American lawmakers are on edge after a wave of hoax bomb threats targeted figures across the political spectrum and prompted the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives to demand that Congress take action to provide “maximum protection”.

Over Thanksgiving nearly the entire Connecticut congressional delegation of Democrats faced bomb threats that apparently were signed “Maga” – shorthand for Donald Trump’s “Make America great again” political movement.

Those threats followed a spate of similar threats that targeted incoming Republican Trump administration appointees and their offices. Figures were also “swatted” by hoax calls to police with the apparent aim of triggering an armed police response to a target.

“It is imperative that Congress provide maximum protection for all members and their families moving forward,” House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement.

Jeffries added: “America is a democracy. Threats of violence against elected officials are unacceptable, unconscionable and have no place in a civilized society. All perpetrators of political violence directed at any party must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

According to Jeffries’ office, the incidents “ranged from detailed threats of a pipe bomb placed in mailboxes to swatting.” All were signed with “Maga” at the conclusion of the message, Jeffries’ statement said.

The US Capitol police declined to offer details about the threats to news website Axios in order to “minimize the risk of copy-cats”.

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating the pre-Thanksgiving wave of threats against Trump’s incoming administration.

Among those targeted were New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick to serve as the next ambassador to the United Nations; Oregon congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, whom Trump wants to lead the Department of Labor; and former New York congressman Lee Zeldin, who has been tapped to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Bomb threats and swatting attempts also married the run-up to November’s presidential election with politicians, election officials and election offices being subject to the threats.

The election played out against a background of warnings of civil unrest if the contest had been tight or disputed. However, Donald Trump’s clear victory over the vice-president, Kamala Harris, largely defused any prospect of protest or violence.

The family dynamics of Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, have burst out into the open after an email from his mother criticizing her son over his treatment of women and calling him an “abuser of women” was leaked to a newspaper.

A 2018 email from Penelope Hegseth accused her son of routinely mistreating women and displaying a lack of character.

“You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego,” Penelope Hegseth wrote in the email obtained by the New York Times.

“You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth,” she added, advising her son to “get some help and take an honest look at yourself”.

Penelope Hegseth told the New York Times she had written the message “in anger, with emotion” while her son was going through an acrimonious divorce from his second wife, Samantha, the mother of three of his children, and had immediately apologized to her son in a second email.

She rejected her earlier characterization of her son to the outlet. “It is not true. It has never been true,” she said. She added: “I know my son. He is a good father, husband.” She said that publishing the contents of the first email was “disgusting”.

The release of the letter comes ahead of Hegseth’s confirmation hearings in the Senate after Trump takes office on 20 January, in which the veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will come under scrutiny.

Hegseth, a former Fox & Friends host, is already facing questions over payments he reportedly made to a woman who accused him of sexual assault – an encounter that he insists was consensual.

Hegseth’s attorney has said his client was “visibly intoxicated” at the time of the incident in a Monterey, California, hotel in 2017 and police who had looked into the woman’s claim had concluded that “the complainant had been the aggressor in the encounter”.

In a statement, Hegseth’s lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, said his client had agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to the woman because he feared that revelation of the matter “would result in his immediate termination from Fox”.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told the Times that the outlet was “despicable” for publishing “an out-of-context snippet” of Penelope Hegseth’s exchange with her son.

A long-awaited Fifa report into the legacy of the Qatar World Cup has finally been published, but only after its key recommendation was rejected by the organisation.

Fifa’s subcommittee on human rights and social responsibility has found that the game’s world body “has a responsibility” to provide financial remedy to workers who suffered loss as a result of employment related to the 2022 World Cup. Its report argues that Fifa should use its Qatar legacy fund to remedy those workers. Two days before the report was published, however, Fifa announced that the $50m fund would be used on international development projects instead.

The subcommittee was commissioned in March last year to examine Fifa’s obligations arising from the Qatar tournament and its impact on those workers who experienced harm. The report was written and submitted last December but it is understood that internal resistance to publication meant it only came out 11 months later, at midnight central European time on Friday.

The report contains an independent assessment by the human rights consultancy Human Level. It acknowledges a number of measures Fifa undertook with Qatari authorities to improve conditions, but “a number of severe human rights impacts did ultimately occur in Qatar from 2010 through 2022 for a number of workers connected to the 2022 World Cup” and that “a credible argument can be made that Fifa contributed to some of the impacts”.

Publication was welcomed by Lise Klaveness, president of the Norwegian football federation, whose submission to the Fifa congress in 2023 initiated the report. “It’s very important that it’s been published,” she said. “I really want to celebrate that, even though it’s it’s been a year of work to get it out. I want to congratulate Michael Llamas who leads this committee and also Dominique Blanc of the Swiss federation who led Uefa’s work on this.”

Fifa are signatories to the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights, which holds companies responsible for the impact of their work, while article 6 says: “Fifa is committed to providing for or cooperating in remediation where it has caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts.” Klaveness said the subcommittee’s report will lead to a better understanding of those human rights obligations.

“It sets out some framework of what is Fifa responsible for and what it is not. This is very important,” she said. “It actually does the analysis of the categorisations of workers and areas where Fifa has responsibility. It also says something about why Fifa is responsible and it attaches it to article 6. It’s important that these responsibilities are not just [the result of] political pressure or media pressure, it’s actually within the statutes of Fifa and need implementation. These frameworks can now be used if we all fight for it and work for it in the future.”

The $50m legacy fund is to be spent on projects in association with the World Health Organisation, World Trade Organisation and the UN refugee agency the UNHCR. This, Klaveness said, was “very positive, but it is in no way a substitute for the remedy that is pointed out in this report. It’s not necessarily important how the funds are delivered but that they are done so in timely, effective and meaningful fashion.”

A Fifa spokesperson said: “All reports and recommendations were considered during a comprehensive review by the Fifa administration and relevant bodies. While all recommendations could not be met, practical and impactful elements were retained. It should be noted that the study did not specifically constitute a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy.

“The creation of the Fifa World Cup 2022 legacy fund was unanimously endorsed by the Fifa council following a proposal made by the Fifa governance, audit and compliance committee. A workers’ support and insurance fund was established in Qatar in 2018 and Fifa believes the new legacy fund, endorsed by recognised international agencies, is a pragmatic and transparent initiative that will encompass social programmes to help people most in need across the world.”

There is now less than a fortnight until an online meeting of the Fifa congress will be invited to approve Saudi Arabia’s lone bid to host the World Cup in 2034. Despite widespread criticism from non-governmental organisations, trade unions and lawyers that the kingdom’s human rights record should disqualify it from contention, Fifa described the risk of human rights violations as “medium” in an assessment of the bid.

Also published on Friday night, the assessment found the Saudi bid to be “a very strong all-round proposition” that “clearly demonstrated” the country’s suitability as a host. “Whilst implementing the various measures outlined in the Human Rights Strategy could involve significant effort and time,” the assessment said, “concrete commitments made by the bid and all local stakeholders do provide a foundation from which all parties can work together constructively.” On Saturday there were reports that the Saudi bid, and the pan-European bid to host in 2030, may not be put to a vote at the congress at all and instead be approved by “acclamation” or a round of applause.

A long-awaited Fifa report into the legacy of the Qatar World Cup has finally been published, but only after its key recommendation was rejected by the organisation.

Fifa’s subcommittee on human rights and social responsibility has found that the game’s world body “has a responsibility” to provide financial remedy to workers who suffered loss as a result of employment related to the 2022 World Cup. Its report argues that Fifa should use its Qatar legacy fund to remedy those workers. Two days before the report was published, however, Fifa announced that the $50m fund would be used on international development projects instead.

The subcommittee was commissioned in March last year to examine Fifa’s obligations arising from the Qatar tournament and its impact on those workers who experienced harm. The report was written and submitted last December but it is understood that internal resistance to publication meant it only came out 11 months later, at midnight central European time on Friday.

The report contains an independent assessment by the human rights consultancy Human Level. It acknowledges a number of measures Fifa undertook with Qatari authorities to improve conditions, but “a number of severe human rights impacts did ultimately occur in Qatar from 2010 through 2022 for a number of workers connected to the 2022 World Cup” and that “a credible argument can be made that Fifa contributed to some of the impacts”.

Publication was welcomed by Lise Klaveness, president of the Norwegian football federation, whose submission to the Fifa congress in 2023 initiated the report. “It’s very important that it’s been published,” she said. “I really want to celebrate that, even though it’s it’s been a year of work to get it out. I want to congratulate Michael Llamas who leads this committee and also Dominique Blanc of the Swiss federation who led Uefa’s work on this.”

Fifa are signatories to the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights, which holds companies responsible for the impact of their work, while article 6 says: “Fifa is committed to providing for or cooperating in remediation where it has caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts.” Klaveness said the subcommittee’s report will lead to a better understanding of those human rights obligations.

“It sets out some framework of what is Fifa responsible for and what it is not. This is very important,” she said. “It actually does the analysis of the categorisations of workers and areas where Fifa has responsibility. It also says something about why Fifa is responsible and it attaches it to article 6. It’s important that these responsibilities are not just [the result of] political pressure or media pressure, it’s actually within the statutes of Fifa and need implementation. These frameworks can now be used if we all fight for it and work for it in the future.”

The $50m legacy fund is to be spent on projects in association with the World Health Organisation, World Trade Organisation and the UN refugee agency the UNHCR. This, Klaveness said, was “very positive, but it is in no way a substitute for the remedy that is pointed out in this report. It’s not necessarily important how the funds are delivered but that they are done so in timely, effective and meaningful fashion.”

A Fifa spokesperson said: “All reports and recommendations were considered during a comprehensive review by the Fifa administration and relevant bodies. While all recommendations could not be met, practical and impactful elements were retained. It should be noted that the study did not specifically constitute a legal assessment of the obligation to remedy.

“The creation of the Fifa World Cup 2022 legacy fund was unanimously endorsed by the Fifa council following a proposal made by the Fifa governance, audit and compliance committee. A workers’ support and insurance fund was established in Qatar in 2018 and Fifa believes the new legacy fund, endorsed by recognised international agencies, is a pragmatic and transparent initiative that will encompass social programmes to help people most in need across the world.”

There is now less than a fortnight until an online meeting of the Fifa congress will be invited to approve Saudi Arabia’s lone bid to host the World Cup in 2034. Despite widespread criticism from non-governmental organisations, trade unions and lawyers that the kingdom’s human rights record should disqualify it from contention, Fifa described the risk of human rights violations as “medium” in an assessment of the bid.

Also published on Friday night, the assessment found the Saudi bid to be “a very strong all-round proposition” that “clearly demonstrated” the country’s suitability as a host. “Whilst implementing the various measures outlined in the Human Rights Strategy could involve significant effort and time,” the assessment said, “concrete commitments made by the bid and all local stakeholders do provide a foundation from which all parties can work together constructively.” On Saturday there were reports that the Saudi bid, and the pan-European bid to host in 2030, may not be put to a vote at the congress at all and instead be approved by “acclamation” or a round of applause.

Voters in Ireland have expressed dissatisfaction with the taoiseach, Simon Harris, despite a return of the current government being the most probable outcome of the election, according to an exit poll.

Of those 5,000 voters surveyed after they placed their vote, 35% named Fianna Fáil’s leader, Micheál Martin, as their preferred new leader of the 34th Dáil.

But solidifying Sinn Féin’s place in the Irish political landscape and reflecting the popularity of its current leader, 34% said they wanted its president, Mary Lou McDonald, to lead the country – far ahead of Harris, the leader of Fine Gael, who came third in the exit poll with 27%.

Although the electorate does not choose the taoiseach, the exit poll is sobering reading for the two main parties – 59% of 18 to 34-year-olds said they preferred McDonald to lead the country and 56% of 25 to 34-year-olds backed her.

With a coalition now the most likely outcome, the chance of a new government led by Sinn Féin is slim. Both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have ruled out forming a government with the party, the former political wing of the IRA in Northern Ireland.

Harris, 38, who called the snap election three weeks ago, went into the campaign in a leading position but a series of slip-ups including an awkward encounter with a care-worker have damaged his brand.

He appears to have come out with 21% of the first preference vote, just behind Sinn Féin at 21.1% and slightly edging Fianna Fáil, which is predicted to come third with 19.5%.

“I think there was big momentum behind the idea of a left-of-centre alternative up until about a year, year and a half ago, and then it faltered,” said Richard Boyd Barrett, the head of the People Before Profit collection of TDs (members of parliament) who are expected to take about 3.1% of the vote.

The Fine Gael director of elections, Olwyn Enright, said the exit poll was a “positive” prediction for the party, but that she was “surprised” with the response over preferences for the taoiseach.

Jack Chambers, the departing Fianna Fáil finance minister, said the result was “too close to call”.

Elsewhere, the exit poll showed: Social Democrats (5.8%), Labour (5%), Greens (4%), Aontú (3.6%), People Before Profit-Solidarity (3.1%), and Independent Ireland (2.2%). Independents and other candidates were on 14.6%. There is a margin of error of 1.4%.

Ballot boxes were opened at 9am on Saturday with the first results of the count of first preference votes not expected until late afternoon and the count not expected to conclude before Sunday night or Monday morning.

The exit poll’s examination of voters’ second preferences put Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael at 20% each, with Sinn Féin at 17%.

The inconclusive results mean that all eyes will now turn to the potential search for coalition partners. Government formation talks could take weeks, with no new government until January possible.

With 87 seats needed for a clear majority in the 174 seat Dáil, no party will be able to form a majority government on their own since the predicted vote share is expected to translate into 30-something seats for each of the three parties.

The predicted results appear to buck the trend in Europe with incumbent parties returning and migration way down the list of priorities for voters, despite the unprecedented riots in Dublin a year ago.

The housing crisis and homelessness emerged as the number one priority among voters with 28% citing it as the biggest influence on their decision after the cost of living, the economy and health, with immigration cited by just 6%.

Unlike the UK, which operates a first-past-the-post system, Ireland has proportional representation, allowing voters to rank candidates who are then eliminated during descending vote transfer rounds.

The Green party, which props up Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the incumbent government, is expected to lose some of its 12 seats on a predicted 4% of the vote with Labour slightly ahead at 5% and the Social Democrats in position to emerge as the fourth largest party at 5.8%.

Another small party, the rightwing Aontú, appears to have doubled its vote and may end up with more seats than the Greens.

Its leader, Peadar Tóibín, told RTÉ they think Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, two parties that emerged from the ashes of the civil war in the 1920s, were “becoming one party in many ways” with about 60% of the electorate voting for a smattering of other parties.

The survey of about 5,000 voters who had cast their ballot during the day was carried out by Ipsos MRBI for RTÉ, the Irish Times, TG4 and Trinity College Dublin. It comes with two strong health warnings – it reflects first preference votes only and carries a margin of error.

The royal family is being deployed by the UK government to roll out the red carpet for the autocratic leaders of Gulf states, amid hopes of a trade deal with the oil-rich countries.

This week will see King Charles welcome the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and the first of his three wives, Sheikha Jawaher, to Buckingham Palace – the first state visit under the new Labour government. The visit comes amid a flurry of activity involving the royal family or government ministers with the Gulf Cooperation Council’s six nations: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Keir Starmer and the foreign secretary, David Lammy, are hoping to use the soft power of the British monarchy to help seal a free trade deal with the GCC. They hope the Gulf countries will boost their sovereign wealth fund investment in Britain and can also mediate in the Middle East conflict.

Britain has a £57bn annual trade with the GCC nations and is in the final stages of negotiating a free-trade agreement predicted to raise that figure by 16%. Starmer’s government is also seeking similar free-trade deals with Switzerland, South Korea, and now India, which is likely to receive a state visit by the king and queen next year. But the GCC is understood to be the immediate priority.

In the Gulf, the historic ties between the all-powerful monarchies and the House of Windsor can be very useful, according to experts in the region. Many of the Gulf’s leaders are British-educated, share interests such as horse racing, and have a long history of investing in Britain.

Starmer and Lammy have also established a close working relationship with King Charles. “It is always the case that as head of state, the king plays an important role,” Lammy said last month in response to questions about whether the monarch’s relationship with Donald Trump might help the government’s dealings with the incoming US administration.

The sheikh was educated at Sherborne, Harrow and Sandhurst, and ultimately controls Paris Saint-Germain football club. The billionaire will receive a ceremonial welcome on Horse Guards Parade, a palace state banquet and a reception by MPs when he addresses parliament this week. His visit on 3 and 4 December follows a trip by King Hamad bin Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa of Bahrain to Windsor Castle last month, during which Charles, encouraged by government ministers in attendance, made him an Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order to mark his silver jubilee.

Last week it was Oman’s turn, when Prince William joined the country’s Crown Prince, Theyazin bin Haitham, at the Royal Geographical Society in London to launch the “Jewel of Arabia”, an expedition showcasing the desert sultanate’s natural beauty to schoolchildren in both countries. William was invited to be co-patron of the expedition, to the delight of Britain’s Foreign Office, and he expressed his desire to return to Oman, which he visited in 2019. “We’ll make something happen. Time flies,” he said.

Later this month Starmer will travel to the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were also recently described as unofficial ambassadors after Beatrice appeared at two conferences in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in the past few weeks, and Eugenie attended events in Qatar.

Human rights organisations have urged the government to use any diplomatic meetings this week to press for reforms in the Gulf countries, which have faced criticism over their treatment of foreign workers, women, LGBTQ+ people and anyone who opposes the regimes.

Polly Truscott, foreign policy adviser at Amnesty International UK, said: “It’s important that Qatar’s poor human rights record isn’t overlooked during the pomp and ceremony of this visit.”

She added: “During this visit, ministers and officials should be pressing the emir on the urgent need for Qatar to put in place long-overdue human rights reforms, not least a viable compensation scheme for migrant workers and their families who’ve suffered enormously as a result of Qatar’s abuse-ridden labour laws.”

The government believes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and regional players including Jordan can help find a lasting resolution to the Middle East conflict.

Some of the groundwork on trade and mediation was laid by Rishi Sunak’s Tory government, but Labour is seeking to firm up what has been a shaky relationship in recent years.

Dr Neil Quilliam, a Middle East specialist at the Chatham House thinktank, said: “The Johnson to Sunak years stretched the patience of Britain’s Gulf partners – all of whom had looked for new opportunities in post-Brexit Britain, but were, in most cases, frustrated by consecutive Conservative leaders’ focus on domestic matters and party politics. A number of high-level inward visits were cancelled at the last minute.

“The quick turnover of ministers made it difficult to establish strong trusted relations with Gulf ministers. During such times, it is commonplace to send royals to reassure Gulf partners that there is continuity in relations and that Britain shares meaningful relations based on historical ties.”

But the decision to hand out honours, particularly to the King of Bahrain, has upset human rights campaigners.

Jeed Basyouni, a spokesperson for Reprieve, which defends people facing human rights abuses, said: “No one is suggesting the royal family shouldn’t promote Britain’s interests abroad. But they should be clear about the costs of celebrating some of the world’s worst human rights abusers and tacitly condoning their actions – both to the victims of these abuses and the UK’s international reputation.”

Buckingham Palace referred questions to the Foreign Office, which said the Gulf mattered to the UK’s economy, security and geopolitical interests.

Elon Musk, named by Donald Trump to co-lead a commission aimed at reducing the size of the federal government, is poised to undermine funding for rural broadband services to benefit his satellite internet services company, Starlink.

Musk has long been a critic of the Biden administration’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (Bead) Program, which provides $42.45bn through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to expand high-speed internet access in rural communities. Starlink, the satellite internet services subsidiary of SpaceX, has largely been shut out of this funding after government agencies deemed it too slow to qualify.

But with Trump’s election, and the deference Trump appears poised to give to Musk’s desired reforms, the world’s richest man could re-prioritize how the federal government provides high-speed internet to rural America, creating an immense conflict of interest. If Musk recommends cuts to government spending on rural fiber optic broadband – as he has repeatedly suggested – it directly increases the value of Starlink’s satellite internet services.

“We have never had a situation where the leading shareholder of a communications company has both a position – both in terms of influencing the president, but also having an assignment to drive efficiency in government – with so many government contracts,” said Blair Levin, a telecommunications industry analyst with New Street Research and the Brookings Institution. “That is an extraordinary situation. That is unprecedented.”

Levin suggested that Trump could order Bead funding to be withheld indefinitely as soon as he takes office, even though Congress has authorized the funding.

Doing so would violate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a law Trump fell afoul of in his first term that ultimately resulted in one impeachment. But Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will co-lead the commission to reduce the size of the federal government, argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial last week that Trump should pursue impoundment when he deems it necessary.

“Mr Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current supreme court would likely side with him on this question,” they wrote.

Any move like this would tie the program in legal knots as lawsuits abound, Levin said. But the delay is the point. “While states and others could file legal actions to stop such a pause, we think most courts would be reluctant to enjoin or otherwise stop the administration from reconsidering some elements of the program. Even actions of dubious legality can benefit Starlink through delay or through litigation.”

Musk had set his sights on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) long before Trump’s victory. The NTIA administers federal grant funding for the Bead program.

Without a government subsidy, rolling fiber optic lines down country roads to serve a handful of houses at a time is usually too cost-prohibitive for an internet service provider. But to companies like AT&T or Verizon, a government subsidy to a local internet service provider also looks like the government funding the competition.

Big telecom companies and the FCC argued long and loud about what parts of the country had access to high-speed service, and thus didn’t need government money. But the definition of “high speed” used by industry and the government was often slow by many standards.

After years of negotiation, lawsuits and politicking, the FCC and the NTIA settled on a modern definition for broadband service: 100 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds, 20Mbps upload speeds, with less than 100 milliseconds of latency.

Right now, Starlink doesn’t meet that standard. It has been getting slightly slower over time even as more people sign up for service, according to internet performance testing service Ookla’s speed tests. In 2022, the FCC rescinded a $900m grant from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund to Starlink to connect rural communities to the internet, citing its failure to meet the speed and latency standards and declining network performance.

Musk erupted on an X post.

“Starlink is the only company actually solving rural broadband at scale! They should arguably dissolve the program and return funds to taxpayers, but definitely not send it those who aren’t getting the job done,” Musk wrote. ”What actually happened is that the companies that lobbied for this massive earmark (not us) thought they would win, but instead were outperformed by Starlink, so now they’re changing the rules to prevent SpaceX from competing.”

In June, Musk described the Bead program, which began rolling out grants to states this year, as “an outrageous waste of taxpayer money and is utterly failing to serve people in need”.

A month later, Musk endorsed Trump and began a $100m spending campaign in support of his candidacy.

After Musk started to gain Trump’s ear – and particularly after Musk’s endorsement and Starlink’s deployment of satellite terminals to areas hit by Hurricane Helene, which Trump praised regularly on the campaign trail – Trump’s language about rural broadband began to shift in Musk’s direction.

Trump described Starlink as “better than the wires”, when talking with Joe Rogan in the much-watched podcast interview. “We’re spending a trillion dollars to get cables all over the country, right, up to upstate areas where you have like two farms … They haven’t hooked up one person.”

Over the last year, the FCC commissioner – and Trump’s newly named FCC chair – Brendan Carr has also echoed Musk’s position, arguing that the public might be better off by subsidizing the cost of Starlink terminals instead of fiber optic broadband.

After Trump’s election, Carr said the FCC is unlikely to revisit its rescission of Starlink’s grant, citing procedural hurdles. But Carr, who authored the FCC chapter of Project 2025, has suggested that as much as a third of Bead funding could go to satellite internet providers.

Republican senators have also been agitating for changes to the Bead program. Senator Ted Cruz, poised to take over the Senate committee overseeing telecommunications, sent a letter last week lambasting the NTIA administrator, Alan Davidson, for alleged waste and administrative bloat in the Bead program.

“Fortunately, as president-elect Trump has already signaled, substantial changes are on the horizon for this program,” Cruz wrote. “Congress will review the Bead program early next year, with specific attention to NTIA’s extreme technology bias in defining ‘priority broadband projects’ and ‘reliable broadband service’.”

Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa sent Musk and Ramaswamy a letter on Tuesday with a roadmap for cost-cutting. The Bead program was on her target list.

Davidson responded to earlier inquiries by Cruz, noting that the NTIA “has obligated over $28bn to states and territories, all of whom also received planning grants through the program”.

The program “also creates room for all strategies, and the NTIA expects states and territories will use a mix of technologies to connect their unserved and underserved locations”, Davidson wrote.

The NTIA announced earlier this year that Starlink could qualify for some Bead funding for services in extremely remote locations. In areas without broadband service from a landline operator, Starlink is often the only option. Project Kuiper by Amazon is also a low-Earth-orbit satellite internet service, which Amazon says will begin consumer offerings next year.

SpaceX and its Starlink subsidiary are private companies that do not regularly disclose their finances. But analysts have argued that, until recently, Starlink had been losing money despite the success of SpaceX.

That has changed over the last year as Starlink’s 6,000-plus low-Earth satellite network has come online and courted business in developing countries. Analysts from Quilty, a space industry intelligence firm, suggest that Starlink’s revenue has exploded, from $1.4bn in 2022 to $6.6bn in 2024.

SpaceX and Tesla have about $15.4bn in government contracts, according to a recent New York Times analysis. Starlink is also competing with 15 other companies for US space force contracts worth nearly $1bn.

Starlink did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Despite the obvious interest in government contracts, Musk and biotech entrepreneur and former presidential candidate Ramaswamy’s “Department of Government Efficiency” will be tasked with reducing the federal government headcount and cutting costs, which could include the Bead program.

“Starlink and Bead are seeking to provide broadband to the same population: those living in low-density America,” Levin said. “While Starlink already has a network that covers the entire country, spectrum constraints and its relative functionalities compared to wired broadband service providers mean that the primary market for Starlink is in low-density America.”

Starlink benefits from any delay in Bead funding, Levin said. “Every day Starlink is signing up customers in low-density America. Today, those in unserved and underserved locations likely believe that if they want a baseline broadband service, they have no choice but to subscribe to the Starlink service. The longer it takes for an alternative provider to come online with a similar or better service, the better it is for Starlink, as its sales process benefits from the current lack of broadband alternatives.”

Reallocating funding from fiber to satellite would put money in Starlink’s pocket at the direct expense of terrestrial competitors.

“While there are other technology options for high-speed connectivity, the most reliable, efficient and future-proof solution is fiber optic technology to the home or business,” said Tom Dailey, head of regulatory and government affairs at Brightspeed, an internet service provider competing for Bead funds.

“Satellite broadband is a costly option that does not provide the same level of reliability or speed that fiber optic technology provides … We don’t anticipate that the Bead program will be eliminated. In fact, we believe it will continue and there is strong bias for fiber technology as the main means of connectivity given its superior speed and bandwidth capabilities.”

The Harry Potter actor Rupert Grint has been ordered to pay £1.8m in taxes after a legal dispute with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Grint, best known for playing Ron Weasley in the film franchise, was told to pay the figure in 2019 when HMRC questioned one of his tax returns.

HMRC disputed £4.5m in income he received during the 2011-12 tax year, claiming it should have been taxed as regular income rather than as a capital asset.

The 36-year-old actor, who was the sole shareholder of a company managing his business affairs, claimed the payment was related to residual income and bonuses from the Potter films.

Grint’s lawyers argued he should only have to pay capital gains tax, which would have been at a rate of 10%. However, HMRC said the money should be taxed as income, subject to a higher tax rate of 52%.

Judge Harriet Morgan ruled in favour of HMRC, dismissing Grint’s appeal, and said the money “derived substantially the whole of its value from the activities of Mr Grint”, which was “otherwise realised” as income.

It is not the first time the actor’s tax affairs have been subject to court proceedings. Grint also lost a separate court case in 2016 involving a £1m tax refund.

A tax tribunal judge rejected the actor’s appeal against an HMRC block on him using a change in accounting dates to shield his earnings from the higher 50% tax rate. The actor was calculated to have earned about £24m from the Potter franchise.

Judge Barbara Mosedale described how Grint had followed advice from tax advisers Clay & Associates to change his accounting date so that 20 months of income would be taxed in 2009-10.

The judge said Grint wished to bring forward to the earlier year liability for payments on eight months’ worth of income otherwise due in the tax year 2010-11 – the year the top rate of tax rose from 40% to 50%.

Mosedale said if the date change had been accepted it would have led to a 10% saving on income – about £1m, according to Grint’s accountants.

Grint appeared in all eight of the Harry Potter films between 2001 and 2011, and has since appeared in the films Into the White and Knock at the Cabin, as well as working in TV and theatre.

Grint has been approached for comment.