Pakistan has responded with tit-for-tat measures against India as tensions soared following a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists.

Islamabad suspended all visas issued to Indian nationals under an exemption scheme with immediate effect, as well as expelling some of its neighbour’s diplomats and closing its airspace to Indian flights.

Indian police have named three of four suspected gunmen behind the attack, saying two are Pakistani citizens and a third is a local Kashmiri man. Pakistan denies Indian claims that it played a role in the shooting.

Tuesday’s attack saw a group of gunmen fire on tourists near Pahalgam, a resort in the disputed Himalayan region.

Police in Indian-administered Kashmir say all three suspects named are members of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). None of the men have commented on the allegations.

A statement from Pakistan’s National Security Committee rubbished attempts to link the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan, saying there had been no credible investigation or verifiable evidence.

Earlier Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that “India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers and we will pursue them to the ends of the Earth.”

He said that the “terrorists behind the killings, along with their backers, will get a punishment bigger than they can imagine”.

“Our enemies have dared to attack the country’s soul… India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism.”

On Wednesday evening Delhi announced a raft of diplomatic measures against Islamabad in light of the killings in Kashmir – one of them was shutting the Attari-Wagah border between the two countries immediately.

India also cancelled visa services to Pakistani nationals “with immediate effect”.

In its response, Pakistan also rejected India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty – a six-decade-old water sharing treaty between the neighbours – adding that any attempt to stop or divert the water “will be considered as an Act of War”.

The country has closed its airspace to all Indian-owned or Indian-operated airlines and suspended all trade with India.

It has also reduced the number of diplomats in the Indian High Commission in Islamabad to 30 and asked Indian defence, naval and air advisers to leave Pakistan before 30 April.

• Kashmir attack risks India military escalation against Pakistan
• India closes main border crossing with Pakistan after attack
• Rage and despair after the attack

About 1,500 people across Kashmir have been detained for questioning in connection with the attack, police sources have told BBC News.

Schools, business and shops are reopening after a shutdown across the region following the shootings.

Police have offered a reward of 2m rupees [$23,000; £17,600] for anyone offering information about any of the attackers.

Visitors from different states in India were killed, with others seriously injured, in one of the deadliest attacks in recent years in the region.

An Indian naval officer on honeymoon, a tourist guide who was the sole breadwinner for his family, and a businessman holidaying with his wife and children were among the victims.

An all-party meeting in Jammu and Kashmir expressed deep shock and anguish at what it called a “barbaric attack”.

The bodies of victims arriving in their home states around India are being given emotional farewells by their families and loved ones.

Meanwhile, reports are coming in from parts of India of Kashmiri students facing harassment in the aftermath of the killings.

A spokesperson for Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s National Conference party said several videos showing students being harassed in colleges and other places were being circulated online.

Nasir Khuehami, head of the Jammu and Kashmir Students’ Association, shared a video of a right-wing Hindu group threatening to physically assault Kashmiri Muslim students in the northern state of Uttarakhand to ensure they leave.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify any of these clips.

A teenage girl has been killed and three students were injured in a stabbing at a private school in western France.

The attack took place at Notre-Dame-de-Toutes-Aides school in Nantes on Thursday afternoon.

The attacker is said to have been arrested at the scene after being restrained by a teacher.

A significant police presence and emergency services were sent to the school, with army officers also present. It has since been evacuated.

Eye-witness accounts in local media described students running through the site, with some confined to classrooms after an alarm was sounded around lunch time.

Families were informed of the knife attack and told students had been immediately held inside the school.

Authorities helped students gradually leave the site from 15:30 local time (13:30 GMT), as some parents waited nearby.

One father told the Reuters news agency they were “waiting to hold them [our children] in our arms” and “help deal with the stress this will have caused”.

The school has around 2,000 students and educates pupils from nursery through to high school, according to its website.

Psychological support has been put in place for students and teachers. Rue des Épinettes, where the school is located in the east of the city, has been closed off.

French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the casualties on X later on Thursday, and praised teachers at the scene.

He wrote: “By their intervention, the teachers undoubtedly prevented further tragedies. Their courage commands respect.”

After the attack, Prime Minister François Bayrou urged “an intensification” of checks for knives in schools.

National and local politicians visited the school after the attack, where Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau told reporters: “This tragedy is not a news item, it is a social phenomenon.”

He added that the “psychological profile” of the suspect was not known.

Nantes public prosecutor Antoine Leroy is said to have visited the school and will hold a news conference in the coming days.

China has called on the US to cancel its sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods entering the country as a sign that the President Donald Trump is serious about resolving the trade war between the two countries.

A Chinese official said there had been no trade talks with the US, despite suggestions otherwise from the Trump administration.

The trade war between the world’s two largest economies has been escalating, with China sending back Boeing planes it ordered from the US in its latest retaliation over tariffs.

But Trump has appeared to soften his stance on China, saying that the taxes he has so far imposed on Chinese imports would “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

A trade war between China and the US is in full swing, with Trump imposing import taxes of up to 145% on Chinese goods coming into the US, and China hitting back with a 125% tax on American products.

In one of China’s strongest statements yet over the tariff war, Commerce Ministry spokesman He Yadong said the US should remove all “unilateral tariff measures” against China “if it truly wanted” to solve the issue.

“The person who tied the bell must untie it,” he added.

Separately, Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said China and the US had “not conducted consultations or negotiations on tariffs, let alone reached an agreement”.

He added that reports to the contrary were “false”.

Trump previously said negotiations between the countries were “active” – but this was also contradicted by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who said on Wednesday they had not yet begun.

Bessent added that there was an opportunity for a “big deal” between the US and China on trade.

He has previously said he expected a de-escalation of the “unsustainable” trade war, and said the current situation was “not a joke”.

Trump said on Tuesday that he would be “very nice” in negotiations with Beijing in the hope of securing a trade deal.

But following China’s latest comments, he said on his Truth Social media platform “Boeing should default China for not taking the beautifully finished planes that China committed to purchase”.

“This is just a small example of what China has done to the USA, for years,” he added, before repeating accusations that synthetic opioid fentanyl “continues to pour into our country from China, through Mexico and Canada, killing hundreds of thousands of our people”.

The boss of plane manufacturer Boeing revealed China had sent back aircraft it had ordered from the US as part of its retaliation to tariffs.

Kelly Ortberg said this week that two planes had already been returned and another would follow due trade tensions between the two countries.

China held a roundtable on Wednesday to address the concerns of more than 80 foreign firms over the impact of US tariffs on their investments and operations in China, the commerce ministry said.

“It is hoped that foreign firms will turn crises into opportunities,” said Vice Commerce Minister Ling Ji.

Tuesday’s bloodshed in Pahalgam – where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire – marks the deadliest militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.

The victims weren’t soldiers or officials, but civilians on holiday in one of India’s most picturesque valleys. That alone makes this strike both brutal and symbolic: a calculated assault not just on lives, but on a fragile sense of normalcy the Indian state has worked hard to project in the disputed region.

Given the fraught history of Kashmir – claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but ruled by each only in part – India’s response is likely to be shaped as much by precedent as by pressure, say experts.

For starters, Delhi has swiftly taken a series of retaliatory steps: closing the main border crossing, suspending a critical water-sharing treaty, and expelling diplomats.

More significantly, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has vowed a “strong response,” pledging action not just against the perpetrators but also the masterminds behind the “nefarious acts” on Indian soil.

The question, analysts say, is not whether there will be a military response – but when, and how calibrated it will be, and at what cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC.

“It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr Raghavan is alluding to two previous major retaliations by India in 2016 and 2019.

After the deadly Uri attack in September 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the de facto border – also known as the Line of Control (LoC) – targeting what it said were militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

And in 2019, after at least 40 paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulwama, India hit an alleged militant camp in Balakot with airstrikes – its first such strike deep inside Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan responded with air raids, leading to a dogfight and the brief capture of an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength but avoided full-scale war.

Two years later, in 2021, they agreed to an LoC ceasefire, which has largely held – despite recurring militant attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that the combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity”.

“The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully, ” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Covert action offers deniability but may not satisfy the political need to visibly restore deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US.

That leaves India with two possible paths, he notes.

First, the 2021 LoC ceasefire has been fraying, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could greenlight a return to cross-border firing.

Second, airstrikes or even conventional cruise missile strikes, like in 2019, are also on the table – each carrying the risk of a retaliatory spiral, as seen in the air skirmishes that followed then.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

One of the gravest risks in any India-Pakistan crisis is that both sides are nuclear-armed. That fact casts a long shadow over every decision, shaping not just military strategy but political calculations.

“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint – they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp, says Mr Raghavan.

“We’ve seen this pattern in other conflicts too, like Israel-Iran – calibrated strikes, followed by efforts to de-escalate. But the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Mr Kugelman says that one of the lessons of the Pulwama crisis is that “each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation”.

“India will need to weigh the political and tactical advantages of retaliation with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, believes escalation is possible this time, with India likely to consider limited “surgical strikes” like in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Mr Haqqani, a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, told the BBC.

“But such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses – and however Pakistan responds – each step is fraught with risk. The threat of escalation looms, and with it, the fragile peace in Indian-administered Kashmir slips further out of reach.

At the same time, India must reckon with the security failures that allowed the attack to happen in the first place. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Mr Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse – especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

Vladimir Putin initially denied having anything to do with Russia’s capture of Crimea in February 2014, when mysterious masked commandos in unidentified green uniforms seized the local parliament and fanned out across the peninsula.

Those “little green men” marked the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine, which culminated in the 2022 full-scale invasion.

The future of Crimea is now at the centre of President Donald Trump’s peace plan and has prompted Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to rule out recognising Russian control of the peninsula.

The exact terms of his plan have not been published, but reports suggest it would include the US recognising Crimea as a legal part of Russia – in Latin.

For Trump, Ukraine’s southern peninsula was “lost years ago” and “is not even a part of discussion” in peace talks.

But for Zelensky to renounce Crimea as an indivisible part of Ukraine would be unconscionable.

• Follow latest updates on Ukraine war

In the words of opposition MP Iryna Gerashchenko “territorial integrity and sovereignty is a red line for Ukraine and Ukrainians”.

Trump made the point that “if [Volodymyr Zelensky] wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it 11 years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

Few shots were fired, but Crimea was seized at gunpoint during a power vacuum.

Putin later admitted hatching the land-grab in an all-night meeting with his officials days after Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader was ousted in Kyiv.

For a US leader in a hurry to secure a peace deal, Crimea could become a big stumbling block.

Trump is correct that there is little chance of Ukraine regaining Crimea in the foreseeable future, and it is in reality – de facto – under Russian control. But that is a far cry from recognising it as legal.

Zelensky points to a 2018 “Crimea declaration” by Trump’s then secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo said the US rejected “Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea” and pledged to continue until Ukraine’s territorial integrity was restored.

• Trump criticises Zelensky over Crimea
• US intensifies bid to end war

Zelensky’s implication is that Trump backed Ukraine on Crimea then, and should stick to that now.

If a landgrab unrecognised by the international community is approved by the US as legal, what would that mean for international law and the principles of the UN charter?

Weeks after Russia’s full-scale war began, there was an initial proposal in Istanbul to park the issue so that Russia and Ukraine would aim to resolve it in the next 10-15 years.

The idea did not take hold but it was a way of getting over that stumbling block.

Zelensky was adamant that he has no power to give up Crimea: “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.”

Article 2 of the constitution states that Ukraine’s sovereignty “extends throughout its entire territory” which “within its present border is indivisible and inviolable”.

Any change to Ukraine’s territory has to go to a national referendum, which must be authorised by the Ukrainian parliament.

It is not just President Trump that has problems with Kyiv. Russia also sees the Ukrainian constitution as an “obstacle” to peace efforts.

Constitutions can be changed, but not while Ukraine is under martial law.

Approving Russia’s illegal annexation would not just be a red line for Ukraine but would be a terrifying precedent for countries such as Romania that border the Black Sea. The precedent would be felt far beyond the Black Sea.

For historical reasons, Russians have long seen Crimea as part of their territory and Putin has spoken of a “living and unbreakable bond” with the peninsula, with its Black Sea resorts and balmy summer climate.

But Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine voted for independence from the collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. It had the status of autonomous republic within and Kyiv allowed Russia to lease the port of Sevastopol as a base for the Black Sea Fleet.

After its annexation in 2014 Putin sought to cement Russia’s control over Crimea, first with a 12-mile bridge built over the Kerch Strait in 2018 and then by capturing a land bridge along the Sea of Azov coast in 2022.

Putin felt he was righting a wrong inflicted on Russia when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Russia, he said, was “not simply robbed, it was plundered”.

• Ukraine in Maps
• Why did Putin invade Ukraine?

Crimea was first annexed by Tsarist Russia under Catherine the Great in 1783 and largely remained part of Russia until Khrushchev’s decision.

Russia and Ukraine were both Soviet republics so it was not a big deal for the Kremlin in 1954.

More than half the population of Crimea was Russian, mainly because the original majority population of Crimean Tatars were deported under Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1944.

Tatars were only able to return to Crimea from exile from 1989 as the Soviet Union fell apart, and they now make up about 15% of Crimea’s population.

Russia quickly organised a referendum in March 2014 but it was rejected as a sham by the international community and the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution backing Ukrainian sovereignty.

The International Criminal Court ruled that Russia’s activity in Crimea amounted to “ongoing occupation”.

Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis, a body representing Crimean Tatars, has insisted that Ukraine must categorically reject any territorial concession in exchange for peace.

“Crimea is the homeland of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people and an integral part of Ukraine,” he said.

Trump’s peace plan has not yet been published, but according to various reports and remarks by US officials, Ukraine would be required to adhere to other difficult conditions.

Russia’s occupation of almost 20% of Ukraine would be de facto recognised behind existing front lines, in effect freezing the conflict in four Ukrainian regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

That would be backed up by a “robust security guarantee”, according to US outlet Axios, presumably backed up by a “coalition of the willing” involving the UK, France but not the US.

There would be a promise not to admit Ukraine into Nato, although it could join the EU.

All US sanctions would be lifted and economic co-operation with the US enhanced.

Axios also suggests Russia would return a small occupied area of the Kharkiv region and allow Ukraine “unimpeded passage” on the Dnipro river, while the US would take charge of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, seized by Russia in 2022.

And then there is a US-Ukraine deal to share minerals profits, which Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal is expected to seal with the US by Saturday.

K-pop group Just B’s member Bain has revealed to fans he is “proud to be part of the LGBT community” – a rare move in an industry known for its tight control over artists’ behaviour, where stars typically keep details of their personal lives private, particularly relationships.

The star, 23, is now among only a handful of K-pop artists who have come out publicly.

Bain made the announcement in front of fans while performing a solo at a concert in Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

The moment was met with loud cheers from the crowd, according to videos circulating on social media.

“To anyone out there who’s part of the LGBT community, or still figuring it out – this is for you guys,” Bain, whose real name is Song Byeong-hee, said in a video posted on his social media after the concert.

“You are seen, you are loved, and you were born this way,” he added, before launching into a performance of Born This Way by pop icon Lady Gaga, whom he referred to as “my queen”.

His bandmates welcomed the announcement. Just B member Siwoo said he cried while watching Bain’s performance. “I know how hard it was for him, and that made me want to cry more,” he said, according to Korean media outlet News1.

The band’s fans have shown their support as well. “We love you so much and are so proud of you for being yourself,” reads a top-liked comment under his Instagram post.

“You are so loved. So proud to be your fan. Be proud of who you are,” another fan wrote.

Formed in 2021, Just B is a six-member act that has released five EPs and multiple singles.

Coming out remains extremely rare in South Korea’s highly-pressurised entertainment industry. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains taboo, and same-sex marriage is not legally recognised.

A 2022 Human Rights Watch report described discrimination against LGBT people in South Korea as “pervasive”.

Bain is not the first K-pop star to come out. Just last month, Lara, an Indian-American member of the girl group Katseye, came out as queer on a K-pop fan community platform. In 2020, Jiae from the now-disbanded girl group Wassup announced on Instagram that she is bisexual.

An Australian politician has been convicted of supplying drugs after he initially dismissed a video showing him snorting a white substance as a “deepfake”.

Former South Australian Liberal party leader David Speirs was fined A$9,000 (£4311; $5,720) and ordered to complete 37.5 hours of community service by an Adelaide court on Thursday.

Speirs was arrested in September after footage of him snorting off a plate was published by News Corp. He initially denied wrongdoing and reportedly told the news outlet it was a “deepfake” and that he had never used cocaine.

However, he later admitted that was a lie and the ensuing scandal and charges led to his resignation from parliament.

Last month, Speirs pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine to two men in August.

Speirs’ defence said he used drugs “as a form of escapism” from the stress of his work, but the offences did not occur in a work capacity.

The case had sparked intense media scrutiny, with prosecutors arguing that it was in the public’s interest given Speirs’ senior position in politics.

His lawyer had previously asked the court not to record the conviction so his client could travel overseas, but the magistrate said the offences were “too serious”.

“The need for public denunciation for this type of offending and the need for general deterrence is too great to refrain from recording a conviction,” magistrate Brian Nitschke said on Thursday.

Nitschke acknowledged Speirs’ defence that the offences occurred during a time of stress but added it was “certainly no excuse”.

Speirs stepped into the role of South Australia’s Liberal leader in 2022 and had served 10 years as a member of parliament.

He did not speak to media after his sentencing.

Prosecutors have indicted former South Korean President Moon Jae-in on charges of bribery related to his former son-in-law’s job at an airline.

Prosecutors argue his former son-in-law, identified only by his surname Seo, had little experience in the aviation industry but was hired in exchange for the airline’s CEO leading a state-funded agency.

Moon led the country from 2017 to 2022 and is best remembered for his attempts to broker a peace deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

He joins a long list of South Korean presidents whose political careers have been marred by scandal, from jail to assassination to suicide.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office this month for his shock martial law declaration, is also facing criminal charges.

Besides Moon, former lawmaker Lee Sang-jik has also been indicted, prosecutors say. He is being accused of bribery and breach of trust.

In 2022, Lee was sentenced to six years in prison for embezzling company funds.

The founder of budget carrier Eastar Jet, Lee was named the head of the Korea SMEs and Startups Agency in 2018 – the same year that Seo was appointed executive director of his airline’s subsidiary Thai Eastar Jet.

Between 2018 and 2020, Seo received around 217 million won ($150,000; £113,000) in salary and housing support – a sum that prosecutors say constitute bribes intended for Moon.

According to prosecutors, Seo was appointed “despite any relevant experience or qualifications in the airline industry”, said a Reuters report.

He “frequently left his post for extended periods… and did not perform his duties in a manner befitting the position”, it added.

The residence of Moon Da-hye, the former president’s daughter, was raided last September during investigations of the bribery allegations.

Moon’s indictment comes amid a series of prosecutions against officials in his administration. Earlier this month, Moon’s former national security advisor and defence minister were indicted for allegedly leaking intelligence to activists.

The country’s prosecution service is often accused of being politicised – and when the government changes hands, it’s common for rival politicians to be investigated.

The current government is led by acting president and prime minister Han Duck-soo the People Power Party’s.

Moon’s Democratic Party has condemned the prosection, calling it a “politically motivated move aimed at humiliating a former president”.

Israel’s military has admitted killing a United Nations (UN) worker with tank fire, having previously denied responsibility, in an incident in the Gaza Strip last month.

After a UN staff member was killed when a UN compound in Deir al-Balah was damaged on 19 March, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it had not struck the site.

But the IDF said on Thursday that the initial findings of its investigation into the incident indicated its troops had in fact killed the UN worker after wrongly identifying the building as containing an “enemy presence”.

It said in a statement: “The building was struck due to assessed enemy presence and was not identified by the forces as a UN facility.”

These preliminary findings have been shared with the UN and the full conclusion will also be provided, it said.

It added: “The IDF regrets this serious incident and continues to conduct thorough review processes to draw operational lessons and evaluate additional measures to prevent such events in the future.

“We express our deep sorrow for the loss and send our condolences to the family.”

The incident, which killed Bulgarian UN worker Marin Valev Marinov and seriously injured five other UN personnel, came a day after Israel renewed its offensive against Hamas after a two-month ceasefire collapsed.

At the time, UN Secretary General António Guterres called for a full investigation into the incident, while a spokesperson said: “The locations of all UN premises are known to the parties to the conflict, who are bound by international law to protect them and maintain their absolute inviolability.”

Following the attack, the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) said that “explosive ordnance was dropped or fired” at a guesthouse, which was in an “isolated” location. Its executive director, Jorge Moreira da Silva, said it was “not an accident”.

The IDF said in a statement on the day of the attack: “Contrary to reports, the IDF did not strike a UN compound in Deir el-Balah. The IDF calls on media outlets to act with caution regarding unverified reports.”

Footage verified by the BBC showed injured people – two wearing blue UN flak jackets – arriving at a hospital in an ambulance and a UN car.

Separately, the IDF said earlier this week that “professional failures” had led to the killing of 15 emergency workers in an incident in Gaza last month.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says at least 1,978 people have been killed since Israel renewed its offensive on the territory, with at least 50 reported killed by Israeli strikes on Thursday.

Israel says it is putting military pressure on Hamas to release the 59 hostages it is still holding, 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

It has also blocked all deliveries of humanitarian aid and other supplies to Gaza for seven weeks. The UN says this is “further depriving people of the means for survival and undermining every aspect of civilian life”.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

More than 51,300 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry.

The gunman who killed seven people at a 2022 Independence Day parade in a Chicago suburb was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Thursday.

Robert Crimo III, 23, pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder charges in March.

After listening to witness testimony over two days, Judge Victoria Rossetti gave him seven back-to-back life sentences for each murder victim plus 50 years for attempted murder.

Crimo opened fire on crowds celebrating the Fourth of July in Highland Park, a city 30 miles (50 kilometres) north of Chicago.

The victims of the shooting ranged from an eight year old boy, paralysed from the waist down, to a young couple and an 88 year old man who were killed.

Video footage captured parade performers and attendees scrambling for safety.

Crimo then fled the scene, leaving his semiautomatic rifle behind.

After a manhunt, authorities apprehended him in the neighbouring state of Wisconsin the same day.

On Wednesday, survivors of the mass shooting told their stories in emotional testimony. Though Crimo did not appear in court, many witnesses addressed him directly, calling him “cowardly” and a “monster”.

Those killed in the shooting were Katherine Goldstein, 64; Jacquelyn Sundheim, 63; Stephen Straus, 88; Nicolas Toledo-Zaragoza, 78; Eduardo Uvaldo, 69; and married couple Kevin McCarthy, 37, and Irina McCarthy, 35.

More than 40 others were injured.

Crimo initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but changed his plea in March.

His father, Robert Crimo Jr., was convicted in 2023 after pleading guilty to misdemeanour counts of reckless conduct for helping his son acquire a firearms ownership identification card. He served about one month in a county jail, winning early release from his 60-day sentence with good behaviour.

The health of Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro has worsened after intestinal surgery earlier this month, according to his medical team.

The 70-year-old remains in intensive care and will undergo new tests.

Bolsonaro was visited in hospital by a court official on Wednesday, who delivered a summons giving him five days to present his initial defence against coup charges, in preparation for his trial.

Bolsonaro has been ordered to stand trial after charges that he directed an alleged right-wing coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election to the left-wing President Lula da Silva.

In a video of the summons being delivered, Bolsonaro could be seen reacting furiously, saying: “I have five days to present my defence?”

During the alleged coup attempt, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed government buildings. Investigations by the police outlined allegations he had personal conversations – including with figures from the armed forces – about the idea of a coup to cling onto power.

His earlier intestinal surgery was in response to ongoing health issues after he was stabbed in 2018 on the campaign trail in the south eastern state of Minas Gerais.

He lost around 40% of his blood and had emergency surgery, with the perpetrator later declared mentally unfit to stand trial.

He has repeatedly denied coup allegations and accused his opponents of a political witch-hunt.

A day before he was delivered the summons in hospital, he recorded a live YouTube broadcast from his hospital bed with three of his sons, despite a doctor’s recommendation not to have visitors.

The Brazilian Supreme Court argued that this showed he was able to be summoned and notified.

Bolsonaro had been hoping to contest the presidential elections again in 2026, despite a current ban on running for office, but he risks a 40-year prison sentence if found guilty.

A trade war between the world’s two biggest economies is now in full swing.

Chinese exports to the US face up to 245% tariffs, and Beijing has hit back with a 125% levy on American imports. Consumers, businesses and markets are braced for more uncertainty as fears of a global recession have heightened.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government has repeatedly said it is open to dialogue, but warned that, if necessary, it would “fight to the end”.

Here’s a look at what Beijing has in its arsenal to counter US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China is the world’s second-largest economy, which means it can absorb the impacts of the tariffs better than other smaller countries.

With more than a billion people, it also has a huge domestic market that could take some of the pressure off exporters who are reeling from tariffs.

Beijing is still fumbling with the keys because Chinese people are not spending enough. But with a range of incentives, from subsidies for household appliances to “silver trains” for travelling retirees, that could change.

And Trump’s tariffs have given the Chinese Communist Party an even stronger impetus to unlock the country’s consumer potential.

The leadership may “very well be willing to endure the pain to avoid capitulating to what they believe is US aggression”, Mary Lovely, a US-China trade expert at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, told BBC Newshour earlier this month.

China also has a higher threshold for pain as an authoritarian regime, as it is far less worried about short-term public opinion. There is no election around the corner that will judge its leaders.

Still, unrest is a concern, especially because there is already discontent over an ongoing property crisis and job losses.

The economic uncertainty over tariffs is yet another blow for young people who have only ever known a rising China.

The Party has been appealing to nationalist sentiments to justify its retaliatory tariffs, with state media calling on people to “weather storms together”.

President Xi Jinping may be worried but, so far, Beijing has struck a defiant and confident tone. One official assured the country: “The sky will not fall.”

China has always been known as the world’s factory – but it has been pouring billions into becoming a far more advanced one.

Under Xi, it has been in a race with the US for tech dominance.

It has invested heavily in homegrown tech, from renewables to chips to AI.

Examples include the chatbot DeepSeek, which was celebrated as a formidable rival to ChatGPT, and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) maker. Apple has been losing its prized market share to local competitors such as Huawei and Vivo.

Recently Beijing announced plans to spend more than $1tn over the next decade to support innovation in AI.

US companies have tried to move their supply chains away from China, but they have struggled to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

Chinese manufacturers at every stage of the supply chain have given the country a decades-long advantage that will take time to replicate.

That unrivalled supply chain expertise and government support have made China a formidable foe in this trade war – in some ways, Beijing has been preparing for this since Trump’s previous term.

Ever since Trump tariffs hit Chinese solar panels back in 2018, Beijing sped up its plans for a future beyond a US-led world order.

It has pumped billions into a contentious trade and infrastructure programme, better known as the Belt and Road initiative, to shore up ties with the so-called Global South.

The expansion of trade with South East Asia, Latin America and Africa comes as China tries to wean itself off the US.

American farmers once supplied 40% of China’s soybean imports – that figure now hovers at 20%. After the last trade war, Beijing ramped up soy cultivation at home and bought record volumes of the crop from Brazil, which is now its largest soybean supplier.

“The tactic kills two birds with one stone. It deprives America’s farm belt of a once‑captive market and burnishes China’s food security credentials,” says Marina Yue Zhang, associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

The US is no longer China’s biggest export market: that spot now belongs to South East Asia. In fact China was the largest trading partner for 60 countries in 2023 – nearly twice as many as the US. The world’s biggest exporter, it made a record surplus of $1tn at the end of 2024.

That doesn’t mean the US, the world’s biggest economy, is not a crucial trading partner for China. But it does mean it’s not going to be easy for Washington to back China into a corner.

Following reports that the White House will use bilateral trade negotiations to isolate China, Beijing has warned countries against “reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests”.

That would be an impossible choice for much of the world

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC last week.

Trump held firm as stocks plummeted following his sweeping tariffs announcement in early April, likening his staggering levies to “medicine”.

But he made a U-turn, pausing most of those tariffs for 90 days after a sharp sell-off in US government bonds. Also known as Treasuries, these have long been seen as a safe investment. But the trade war has shaken confidence in the assets.

Trump has since hinted at a de-escalation in trade tensions with China, saying that the tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

So, experts point out, Beijing now knows that the bond market can rattle Trump.

China also holds $700bn in US government bonds. Japan, a staunch American ally, is the only non-US holder to own more than that.

Some argue that this gives Beijing leverage: Chinese media has regularly floated the idea of selling or withholding purchases of US bonds as a “weapon”.

But experts warn that China will not emerge unscathed from such a situation.

Rather, it will lead to huge losses for Beijing’s investments in the bond market and destabilise the Chinese yuan.

China will only be able to exert pressure with US government bonds “only up to a point”, Dr Zhang says. “China holds a bargaining chip, not a financial weapon.”

What China can weaponise, however, is its near monopoly in extracting and refining rare earths, a range of elements important to advanced tech manufacturing.

China has huge deposits of these, such as dysprosium, which is used in magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and Yttrium, which provides heat-resistant coating for jet engines.

Beijing has already responded to Trump’s latest tariffs by restricting exports of seven rare earths, including some that are essential for making AI chips.

China accounts for about 61% of rare earths production and 92% of their refining, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

While Australia, Japan and Vietnam have begun mining for rare earths, it will take years before China can be cut out of the supply chain.

In 2024, China banned the export of another critical mineral, antimony, that is crucial to various manufacturing processes. Its price more than doubled amid a wave of panic buying and a search for alternative suppliers.

The fear is that the same can happen to the rare earths market, which would severely disrupt various industries from electric vehicles to defence.

“Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths,” Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade and Investment, told the BBC previously.

“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial.”

Canadians are set to vote on Monday in an election seen as one of the most consequential in years, as the country looks to its future amid a trade war with the US.

So what are the main federal political parties promising?

Their platforms address key issues on the minds of voters, from their approach a suddenly volatile US-Canada relationship to the rising cost of living to energy and climate change.

Here is a breakdown on where each party stands on some of the major issues:

Canada, like many countries, has been grappling with higher prices for everyday goods while wages have failed to keep up, and all the parties are pitching ways to keep more money in the pockets of Canadians.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are proposing tax cuts for people in the lowest tax bracket, with the Liberals promising a one-percentage-point cut and the Conservatives proposing dropping the tax rate from 15% to 12.75%.

Conservatives are also in favour of removing the federal sales tax on purchases of all new homes and Canadian-made cars, while the Liberals have vowed to scrap sales taxes on homes under C$1m ($720,000; £540,000) for first-time buyers.

The Bloc Québécois, a party that focuses on Quebec interests and only runs candidates in the province, wants to pass a bill that would increase Old Age Security – benefits for pensioners – payments by 10%. The party also wants to limit credit card interest rates.

The left-wing NDP has proposed scrapping the federal sales tax on essentials like energy, phone and internet bills. It has also vowed to double the income received by Canadians with disabilities.

The main theme of the campaign has been how Canada’s next prime minister will tackle a trade war with its closest economic ally and neighbour, after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and threatened its sovereignty.

Most of the leading federal parties agree on some form of retaliatory tariffs in response to those put in place by the US, though they have different ideas on how the money raised by these levies would be used.

The Conservatives promised to put it towards tax relief, especially for workers affected by tariffs. The Liberals have also said they would use money raised by counter tariffs to help workers and businesses and the NDP vowed to put “every dollar” collected towards supporting those affected.

Additionally, the Liberals have said they will spend C$5bn on measures to diversify trade internationally and within Canada and invest in infrastructure like ports and railroads, and C$2bn to protect Canada’s auto industry.

The Conservatives are also remove trade barriers between provinces, and will call a meeting with premiers within a month of taking office.

They also want to pursue a trade and mobility agreement with the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Bloc has called for pandemic-style support for affected workers and are pushing for more support for Quebec’s aluminium industry, which has suffered under Trump’s metals levies.

The NDP have proposed a 100% levy on all Tesla products if Trump moves ahead with his full threatened tariffs on all Canadian goods, and to bar the president from the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta in June.

Canada has been criticised – including by President Trump – for lagging behind on its military spending, falling well short of the Nato target (which is 2% of a country’s GDP).

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives say they will aim to reach that goal by 2030.

The Liberals say they will spend C$18bn over the next four years, which will go to purchasing new equipment like submarines and heavy icebreakers that can be used in Canada’s north.

The Conservatives are pledging C$17bn in that same time frame, and are vowing to build new Arctic military bases in Iqaluit and Churchill, Manitoba.

The NDP has a longer timeline of 2032 for reaching the Nato target. The party would also cancel Canadian contracts for US-built fighter jets and aircrafts, and also bolster and set up new military bases in the north.

Home prices have skyrocketed in the last decade across the country.

The Liberals want to create a standalone federal entity that would act as a developer for affordable housing. Through it, a Liberal government would supply C$25bn in debt financing for prefabricated home builders.

They have also vowed to more than double annual housing starts in Canada to 500,000.

Conservatives want to tie federal funding to cities based on the number of homes they have built. Their goal is to build 2.3 million homes in Canada in the next five years – about 460,000 a year.

Conservatives would also sell off 15% of federal buildings so the land can be used for the construction of affordable homes.

The NDP’s platform is focused on building three million affordable homes in the next five years by speeding up approvals and spending C$1bn for the construction of rent-controlled homes.

The party has also vowed to set aside federal land to build a total of 100,000 rent-controlled units by 2035.

One of the Conservatives’ key promises was doing away with an unpopular consumer carbon pricing pricing programme put in by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Liberal leader Mark Carney repealed it in his first week as prime minister. A similar tax on large industrial emitters, however, remains in place.

The Liberals have vowed to “improve” that tax to maintain the push on reducing emissions while ensuring Canadian companies are still competitive.

They plan to support carbon removal and sequestration technologies and speed approval of clean energy projects.

Conservatives say they will repeal all carbon pricing, which they say will in turn reduce regulations and help boost the economy.

They also want to scrap a cap on oil and gas emissions, and do away with Bill C-69, an environmental assessment act for major infrastructure.

They have promised to bring in a tax credit to boost clean Canadian manufacturing to help lower emissions.

The Liberals, on the other hand, want to build a Canada east-west electricity grid, though Carney has said that he, too, is open to the construction of new pipelines to reduce dependence on the US.

The NDP said they would keep the industrial carbon price, and is against building an LNG pipeline in Quebec.

It also opposes a proposed pipeline that would transfer oil from Alberta to New Brunswick, prioritising an east-west electricity grid instead.

The NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party want to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies while the Bloc wants a cap on oil-and-gas sector emissions.

The Greens additionally want to transition to a fully renewable electricity system by eliminating coal, oil, and gas-fired power generation and invest in solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy.

They also want to cancel all new pipelines and oil exploration projects.

In Quebec, the issue of independence from Canada has long simmered. But faced with US tariffs and President Donald Trump’s comments about making Canada the 51st US state, many voters are now seeking unity.

Suzanne Dumont knows who she will vote for in Canada’s election, though it’s a decision made “not from my heart, it’s from my head”.

The 70-year-old from Quebec City considers herself a sovereigntist, but hopes when Canadians go to the polls on Monday they’ll elect a majority government to take on Trump.

The Bloc Québécois, a federal party that supports independence and only runs candidates in the predominantly French-speaking province, can’t deliver on that, she says.

Supporting the Conservatives is “unthinkable” to Ms Dumont, so this time she will be voting Liberal.

In Montreal, Louis Plouffe is picking up groceries at the city’s Jean-Talon market.

He tells the BBC that he thinks the Bloc “defends Quebec’s interests well” as an opposition party in Parliament. Still, “it’s not being in power”, the 65-year-old says, and he wants a government with a strong mandate “ready for the wave that’s coming” from the US.

And while Mr Plouffe has reservations about the Liberal leader, he believes Mark Carney has come across as credible and confident in interviews. He too will vote for the party.

“Canadian patriotism is on the rise in Quebec”, said Émilie Foster, an adjunct professor in politics at Carleton University. “We prefer to be part of Canada instead of being part of the United States, if we have to choose,” she says.

Sébastien Dallaire, a pollster with Léger, puts it this way: “It’s hard to say now is the time to talk about Quebec sovereignty, or now is the time to do things specifically to defend Quebec, when clearly there’s a national crisis and everybody is staring not at Ottawa as the adversary, but as Washington as the clear opponent.”

A recent Léger survey suggests that almost 40% of voters for the Bloc believe an independent Quebec would have less influence than Canada as a whole in dealing with the US.

The Liberals are currently polling at about 46% in the province, with the Bloc a distant second at 25%, slightly ahead of the Conservatives, who have long struggled to gain real traction there.

Quebec can be a wildcard in general elections, and winning the province – which holds 78 seats of the 343 in the House of Commons – can propel a party to power.

The abandonment of smaller parties – like the Bloc, the left-leaning New Democrats or the Green Party – is a trend seen nationwide as Canadians rally around either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the face of a new threat from their neighbour.

Carney, a former central banker for Canada and the UK, is seeking to paint himself as the leader most able to help the country navigate the crisis. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is billing himself as the change candidate who can restore the “Canadian promise”.

It has been a remarkable election campaign, one sparked by the resignation of longtime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then overshadowed by an unprecedented intervention from an American president which transformed the state of the race.

Trump’s tariffs are expected to hit Quebec especially hard. The province is one of the biggest suppliers to the US of aluminium, a sector hit by Trump’s 25% tariffs. Its significant forestry and dairy industries are also in the president’s sights.

Quebec also fiercely protects its identity and its culture as a distinct society, and has twice held referendums on whether to seek independence from the rest of Canada. That’s why the US president’s repeated digs at Canada’s sovereignty has sparked such disquiet here.

Bloc MP Louis-Philippe Sauvé, a former political aide, is fighting to hold on to the seat he won just last September in a special election in the southwest Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard-Verdun – an upset victory in a district considered a Liberal stronghold.

The riding is historically working-class, and in recent years parts have become some of the trendiest in the city.

Gentrification has brought pressures, and Sauvé tells the BBC during a pause while campaigning that issues like housing, homelessness and immigration all come up as he goes door-knocking, just as they did six months ago.

“That’s all still there, but for sure this general election is very much monopolised by challenges posed by the US, the Canada-US relationship,” he says. “That’s really what everyone’s talking about.”

He admits some frustration that it’s become the “ballot box question”.

“Trump won’t be president of the United States for eternity,” he adds. “The housing crisis will still be a problem in the next few years.”

• What Trump really wants from Canada
• Who’s who in Canada’s federal election
• What did Canadian voters make of the big debate?
• ‘My home is worth millions – but young people are priced out of this city’

The Bloc’s struggles come despite a consensus that party leader Yves-François Blanchet hasn’t had many stumbles in the campaign.

His pitch is that the party can be a check on federal powers, warning that Ottawa might sell out provincial interests if push comes to shove in trade and security talks with the US, which are expected to launch shortly after the 28 April election.

And in a number of ways, Carney is also an unusual choice for Quebec voters. Born in western Canada, his French can be shaky – usually a political liability in the province.

Even Trudeau, widely viewed as bilingual, faced scrutiny over his linguistic abilities. Carney has given his own French a six out of 10. Ms Dumont said she would “never” rate him that high.

Carney has also come out against sensitive issues for many Quebecers, including saying that a Liberal government would intervene if a bill that expands French-language requirements in the province were challenged at the Supreme Court.

“I have a hard time explaining the lack of reaction by Quebecers,” says Bloc MP Sauvé of Carney’s enduring popularity in the province. “It’s like there is a Teflon effect.”

The Liberal candidate in the riding, Claude Guay – the former CEO of IBM Canada who is taking his first run at politics – says Quebecers have taken notice of things like Trump signing an executive order making English America’s official language. (French is Quebec’s official language, while Canada is officially bilingual.)

“The threat of the 51st state, for example, really impacts the opinions of people that may have been sovereigntist and they’re thinking: ‘Well, do we have a better place in Canada?'” he says.

Still, no one suggests that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been settled. About 30% of Quebecers currently back independence even as some are opting to vote with the Liberals this election.

For Mr Plouffe, the shopper at the Montreal market, however, now is just not the time to take the leap.

“It’s not saying it won’t happen, and I won’t say I won’t support it. But we’re not ready,” he says.

Shot 16 times in an assassination attempt in 2017, Tindu Lissu is the great survivor of Tanzanian politics – and one of its most persecuted politicians.

But some are asking whether he has now reached the the end of the line.

Lissu, the leader of the main opposition party, Chadema, is back in the limelight after being charged with treason – a crime for which the maximum sentence is the death penalty.

Still, he is undeterred. Despite the enormous risk, he believes he can pressure the government to institute reforms, ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections in October.

But can he weather the storm in a harsh political environment, and against what he believes are politically driven charges?

His party has been disqualified from the elections and he has been in detention for the past two weeks.

In September last year, Lissu told the BBC that nothing would come on a silver platter, and it would take courage to demand reforms “on the streets and in the villages”.

To achieve his goals, he felt he had to take over Chadema’s leadership.

A fiery politician, Lissu was critical of the way the party was being run, accusing then chairman Freeman Mbowe of being too reconciliatory towards the government.

In an intense race, he ousted Mbowe from the post.

After just three months at the helm of Chadema, Lissu was this month arrested and detained for a speech allegedly calling for the public to launch a rebellion and disrupt the elections.

He was not allowed to enter a plea on the treason charge but pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of publishing false information.

Prior to his arrest, he had been holding gatherings across the country with a rallying call of “no reforms, no elections”.

He said the current system was rigged in favour of the ruling CCM party, adding that without reforms, there was no point in taking part in the elections.

He was due to appear at Kisutu magistrates’ court in Dar es Salaam on Thursday. There was tight security around the court and elsewhere in the city.

Chadema said more of party officials, including deputy chairman John Heche and secretary general John Mnyika, were arrested on their way to the court.

The court ordered the case to be heard virtually but Lissu did not appear before it, with the case going on in the presence of his lawyers. The hearing will continue on Monday.

Lissu cannot seek bail because he has been charged with treason.

His international lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, told the BBC that it was their “mission to defend democracy”.

Yet it is no simple task – CCM has won every election since independence, and is unlikely to easily let go of its stranglehold on power.

There is also a rift in Chadema, with some members disagreeing with Lissu’s strategy.

The party is barred from contesting October’s election after it refused to comply with the electoral commission’s requirement to sign a code of conduct.

The document’s key objective “is to ensure that political parties and their supporters behave well… and maintain peace and harmony” during the elections.

Chadema sees the code of conduct as a ploy to contain the opposition, and it fears that state repression will continue.

In September a senior Chadema party official was abducted and brutally killed amid a wave of abductions of government critics.

During local elections in November, Chadema said thousands of its candidates were barred from participating. The ruling party won about 98% of the seats.

The government dismissed suggestions that the elections were not free and fair, saying they were held in accordance with the rules.

But for Lissu, the local elections justified his calls for reforms ahead of the presidential and parliamentary polls.

• Tanzania’s main opposition party banned from election
• Why Samia’s hesitant reforms are fuelling Tanzanian political anger

Campaign group Human Rights Watch has expressed similar fears, and has urged the government to end political repression.

The Catholic Church has added its voice to calls for the unconditional release of Lissu, and for fair elections.

But the arrest of opposition politicians has continued, despite Prime Minister Kassim Majaliwa promising earlier this month that the authorities would ensure security and fairness in the polls.

The BBC has reached out to the government for comment.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan gave Tanzanians greater political freedom after she took office following the death in office of her predecessor John Magufuli in 2021.

However, Tanzania was once again “beginning to see the wave of repression and state-orchestrated violence” that characterised Magufuli’s rule, Tanzanian political analyst Nicodemus Minde said.

It was during that era that Lissu survived an assassination attempt.

Before his arrest, Lissu said his party had a list of “minimum but critical reforms that must be made to guarantee free elections”.

Mr Amsterdam, his lawyer, told the BBC that this included the formation of “a truly independent national electoral commission with members unconnected to the government” – and this must be enshrined in the constitution.

Chadema is also demanding that when there are electoral disputes, the burden of proof should lie with the commission to show that the vote was free and fair.

Lissu’s strategy has come at a heavy cost to himself and Chadema, as a faction within the party, known as G-55, has adopted a softer stance.

It has called for the party to contest the elections while pursuing talks with the government over its demands.

That is the approach taken by the second largest opposition party, ACT-Wazalendo.

Along with 16 fringe opposition parties, it has signed the code of conduct. Only Chadema has refused.

Lissu appears to see neighbouring Kenya – where mass protests last year forced the government to drop plans to increase taxes – as a model to follow.

At the time, he told the BBC that Tanzanians had not “pressed hard enough for democratic reform”, and what Kenya went through in order to get [its] democratic dispensation is something that we need to do”.

Whether such a strategy would work is unclear, as many Tanzanians appear reluctant to publicly support a campaign that could rattle the government.

But Mr Amsterdam said the more intransigent the government, the more it would spur Chadema’s supporters “to push forward and engage in civil disobedience”.

He added that Chadema would use “every legal and political tool” to achieve change.

But political analyst Thomas Kibwana criticised Lissu’s strategy, saying that with the term of the current parliament due to end in June there would not be enough time to give legal effect to any major reforms ahead of the October election.

He said it might be better for Chadema to wait until after the election.

Fulgence Massawe, the director of a legal rights organisation in Tanzania, told the BBC that Chadema’s push for electoral reforms faced significant hurdles, but the party had the right to go to court to challenge its exclusion from the elections.

Mr Minde said that if Chadema remained shut out of the elections, the ruling party is likely to increase its already overwhelming majority in parliament.

The analyst added that Chadema might even lose its standing as the main opposition party, and “of course nature pulls back and probably other opposition parties will seize this opportunity”.

It is a risk that Lissu and the party have chosen to take.

• ‘Manhandled and choked’ – Tanzanian activist recounts abduction
• Fiery Tanzanian politician Tundu Lissu elected to head opposition party
• Tanzania opposition youth leader dumped at beach after abduction
• John Magufuli: The cautionary tale of the president who denied coronavirus

“Out! Out! Out!”

The voice in the Telegram video is insistent. Loud. Sometimes musical.

And the message unambiguous.

“All of Hamas, out!”

On the streets of Gaza, more and more Palestinians are expressing open defiance against the armed group that’s ruled the strip for almost 20 years.

Many hold Hamas responsible for plunging the tiny, impoverished territory into the worst crisis faced by Palestinians in more than 70 years.

“Deliver the message,” another crowd chants, as it surges through Gaza’s devastated streets: “Hamas is garbage.”

“The world is deceived by the situation in the Gaza Strip,” says Moumen al-Natour, a Gaza lawyer and former organiser of the 2019 anti-Hamas “We Want to Live” movement.

Al-Natour spoke to us from the shattered remains of his city, the flimsy canvas side of the tent which now forms part of his house billowing behind him.

“The world thinks that Gaza is Hamas and Hamas is Gaza,” he said. “We didn’t choose Hamas and now Hamas is determined to rule Gaza and tie our fate to its own. Hamas must retreat. “

Speaking out is dangerous. Hamas has never tolerated dissent. Al-Natour seems undaunted, writing a furious column for the Washington Post at the end of March.

“To support Hamas is to be for Palestinian death,” he wrote, “not Palestinian freedom”.

Wasn’t it dangerous to speak out in this way, I asked him.

“We need to take a risk and speak out,” he replied without hesitation.

“I’m 30 years old. When Hamas took over, I was 11. What have I done with my life? My life has been wasted between war and escalating violence for nothing.”

Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 by violently ousting political rivals, a year after winning national elections, there have been three major wars with Israel and two smaller conflicts.

“Humanity demands that we raise our voices,” al-Natour said, “despite suppression by Hamas”.

Hamas may be busy fighting Israel, but it’s not afraid to punish its critics.

At the end of March, 22-year old Oday al-Rubai was abducted by armed gunmen from a refugee shelter in Gaza City.

Hours later, his body was found covered in horrific wounds.

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights said Oday had been tortured, calling his death “a grave violation of the right to life and an extrajudicial killing”.

Al-Rubai had participated in recent anti-Hamas protests. His family blamed Hamas for his death and demanded justice.

Days earlier, a frightened al-Rubai posted a dark, grainy video on social media in which he expressed his fear that Hamas militants were coming for him.

“Gaza has become a city of ghosts,” he said, glancing over his shoulder.

“I’m stranded in the street, not knowing where to go. I don’t know why they’re after me. They destroyed us and brought ruin to us.”

At his funeral, a small crowd demanded revenge and repeated demands for Hamas to get out of Gaza.

Last summer, Amin Abed almost suffered the same fate, following his decision to speak out against Hamas.

Masked militants beat him senseless, broke bones all over his body and damaged his kidneys. Abed survived but had to seek medical treatment abroad.

Now living in Dubai, he’s still involved in the protest movement, and believes that Hamas’ authority is diminished.

“Hamas’ power has begun to fade,” he told me.

“It targets activists and civilians, beats and kills them to scare people. But it’s not how it was before.”

Before the ceasefire collapsed last month, Hamas fighters seemed intent on highly visible displays of power.

But now, with Israel once again attacking relentlessly, the same gunmen have retreated underground and Gaza’s civilians have been plunged back into the misery of war.

Some of the more recent protests suggest that civilians, driven to the edge of madness by a year and a half of Israeli bombardment, are losing their fear of Hamas.

Beit Lahiya, at the northern end of the Gaza Strip, has seen some of the most vociferous opposition.

In a series of voice notes, an eyewitness – who asked not to be named – described several recent incidents in which local residents prevented Hamas fighters from carrying out military actions from inside their community.

On 13 April, he said, Hamas gunmen tried to force their way into the house of an elderly man, Jamal al-Maznan.

“They wanted to launch rockets and pipes [a derogatory term used for some of Hamas’ home-made projectiles] from inside his house,” the eyewitness told us.

“But he refused.”

The incident soon escalated, with relatives and neighbours all coming to al-Maznan’s defence. The gunmen opened fire, injuring several people, but eventually were driven out.

“They were not intimidated by the bullets,” the eyewitness said of the protesters.

“They advanced and told [the gunmen] to take their things and flee. We don’t want you in this place. We don’t want your weapons that have brought us destruction, devastation and death.”

Elsewhere in Gaza, protesters have told militants to stay away from hospitals and schools, to avoid situations in which civilians are caught up in Israeli air strikes.

But such defiance is still risky. In Gaza City, Hamas shot one such protester dead.

With little to lose and hopes of an end to the war dashed once more, some Gazans direct their fury equally at Israel and Hamas.

Asked which side he blamed most for Gaza’s catastrophe, Amin Abed said it was “a choice between cholera and the plague”.

The protest movement of recent weeks is not yet a rebellion, but after almost 20 years of rule Hamas’ iron grip on Gaza is slowly slipping.

Tuesday’s bloodshed in Pahalgam – where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire – marks the deadliest militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.

The victims weren’t soldiers or officials, but civilians on holiday in one of India’s most picturesque valleys. That alone makes this strike both brutal and symbolic: a calculated assault not just on lives, but on a fragile sense of normalcy the Indian state has worked hard to project in the disputed region.

Given the fraught history of Kashmir – claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but ruled by each only in part – India’s response is likely to be shaped as much by precedent as by pressure, say experts.

For starters, Delhi has swiftly taken a series of retaliatory steps: closing the main border crossing, suspending a critical water-sharing treaty, and expelling diplomats.

More significantly, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has vowed a “strong response,” pledging action not just against the perpetrators but also the masterminds behind the “nefarious acts” on Indian soil.

The question, analysts say, is not whether there will be a military response – but when, and how calibrated it will be, and at what cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC.

“It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr Raghavan is alluding to two previous major retaliations by India in 2016 and 2019.

After the deadly Uri attack in September 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the de facto border – also known as the Line of Control (LoC) – targeting what it said were militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

And in 2019, after at least 40 paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulwama, India hit an alleged militant camp in Balakot with airstrikes – its first such strike deep inside Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan responded with air raids, leading to a dogfight and the brief capture of an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength but avoided full-scale war.

Two years later, in 2021, they agreed to an LoC ceasefire, which has largely held – despite recurring militant attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that the combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity”.

“The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully, ” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Covert action offers deniability but may not satisfy the political need to visibly restore deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US.

That leaves India with two possible paths, he notes.

First, the 2021 LoC ceasefire has been fraying, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could greenlight a return to cross-border firing.

Second, airstrikes or even conventional cruise missile strikes, like in 2019, are also on the table – each carrying the risk of a retaliatory spiral, as seen in the air skirmishes that followed then.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

One of the gravest risks in any India-Pakistan crisis is that both sides are nuclear-armed. That fact casts a long shadow over every decision, shaping not just military strategy but political calculations.

“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint – they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp, says Mr Raghavan.

“We’ve seen this pattern in other conflicts too, like Israel-Iran – calibrated strikes, followed by efforts to de-escalate. But the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Mr Kugelman says that one of the lessons of the Pulwama crisis is that “each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation”.

“India will need to weigh the political and tactical advantages of retaliation with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, believes escalation is possible this time, with India likely to consider limited “surgical strikes” like in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Mr Haqqani, a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, told the BBC.

“But such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses – and however Pakistan responds – each step is fraught with risk. The threat of escalation looms, and with it, the fragile peace in Indian-administered Kashmir slips further out of reach.

At the same time, India must reckon with the security failures that allowed the attack to happen in the first place. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Mr Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse – especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

In India, you can face criminal charges for tethering an animal on the street, flying a kite in a manner that causes alarm, skipping a school attendance order or handing a feeding bottle to a mother who can’t breastfeed.

Of the 882 federal laws on the books, 370 contain criminal provisions – together criminalising 7,305 acts and omissions. These range from the absurd to the serious: failing to give a month’s notice before quitting your job or not walking your dog enough, to offences like illegal arms possession, murder and sexual assault.

Delhi-based think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy calls it “India’s crisis of over-criminalisation”.

In a new report, The State of the System: Understanding the Scale of Crime and Punishment in India, the think-tank has produced the country’s first comprehensive database of crimes, mapping the extent of criminalisation across 370 federal laws.

The report flags India’s habit of reaching for criminal law to solve just about everything – even the mundane. It notes that many laws criminalise “routine, everyday actions”.

You could, for instance, be charged for tethering your goat on a public street, fixing a leaky tap without a licence or not naming the owner of a building when asked.

Then there are the truly obscure offences – like a parent ignoring a school attendance order, applying for a driver’s licence when banned or littering in a zoo. Basically, there’s a criminal penalty waiting around every corner of daily life.

Let your pigs wander on to a field or road and you could be fined 10 rupees (12 cents). Disturb an animal or litter in a zoo? Six months in jail or a 2,000-rupee fine. And failing to exercise your dog can cost you up to 100 rupees and three months in jail.

Promoting infant milk substitutes or feeding bottles to pregnant women or mothers can lead to up to three years in jail or a 5,000-rupee fine. (This was meant to curb aggressive marketing by formula food companies, but the law also applies to individuals, which makes it controversial.)

Jail is the go-to punishment in India – 73% of crimes carry prison terms ranging from a single day to 20 years.

More than 250 offences across 117 laws penalise delays in filing documents – everything from wealth and property tax returns to gift declarations, the report finds.

Some 124 crimes across 80 laws criminalise obstructing a public officer, often without clearly defining what causes “obstruction”.

Even the death penalty isn’t off the table – not just for murder or mutiny, but for damaging an oil or gas pipeline or a sentry caught sleeping on duty. In all, a staggering 301 offences in India can legally cost you your life.

Out of 7,305 offences under central laws, nearly 80% come with fines – from as low as two rupees to a staggering 50m rupees.

To be fair, many of these provisions are rarely used – India’s crime records bureau tracks around 50 laws, even though 370 carry criminal penalties.

“They’re not heavily enforced, but they create ample opportunities for rent-seeking,” Naveed Mehmood Ahmad, co-author of the study at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, told me.

“There’s enough in the books to jail almost anyone for some technical non-compliance. It’s less about actual use and more about the potential for misuse.”

This “excessive use of criminal law not only disrupts the daily lives of ordinary citizens but also creates significant barriers for business operations”, the report says.

Businesses in India face a maze of regulations, but using criminal law as the default for non-compliance is excessive, disproportionate and often counter-productive, experts say.

The report also talks about some glaring inconsistencies in crime and punishment.

Rioting – the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly – is punishable with up to two years of imprisonment. Meanwhile, falsely reporting a birth or death for official records can lead to three years of imprisonment.

The irony? Violence in public gets a lighter sentence than a lie on paper.

Even more striking: crimes of vastly different severity carry the same penalty – like practicing homoeopathy without a licence, jumping a red light, or forcing someone into labour – all punishable with a one-year sentence.

The sheer number of crimes tied to everyday life and business shows how heavily the state leans on criminalisation to enforce compliance, the report says.

“This over-reliance has significant costs, not just for citizens and businesses, but also for state machinery.”

Over 34 million criminal cases are pending in India’s courts, with 72% stuck for more than a year. Prisons are overcrowded, running at 131% capacity, while courts and police forces continue to grapple with chronic staff shortages

Even the law-and-order machinery is stretched. As of 1 January 2023, India had just 154 police personnel per 100,000 people – well below the sanctioned 195. Nationwide, there are 581,000 vacancies against an approved strength of 2.72 million.

“Even then, we continue to rely on this overburdened system to combat minor infractions, including those that attract nominal fines,” the report says.

It says that criminal law should be limited to acts that threaten core societal values – like public safety, national security, life, liberty, property and social harmony.

Authorities say they plan to scrap criminal penalties in more than 100 legal provisions – on top of the 180 already axed in 2023. It’s not just legal clean-up; it’s a chance to rethink how the law treats people. Less fear, more trust. Less suspect, more citizen.

The best friend of a woman who died from methanol poisoning on holiday has called on the government to do more to educate teenagers in schools about the dangers of drinking alcohol abroad.

Bethany Clarke was travelling in Laos in south-east Asia with childhood friend Simone White when they drank free shots they were offered in a hostel in November.

The following day, they both became unwell and initially thought they had food poisoning. But, a few days later, 28-year-old Simone died in hospital.

The Department for Education have been contacted for a comment about Bethany’s petition.

Simone, who was from Orpington in south-east London, and Bethany planned to stay in Cambodia for just under two weeks, and spend four days in Laos.

They fell ill after drinking six vodka shots served to them at the Nana Backpackers hostel in traveller hotspot Vang Vieng.

Five other tourists also died after drinking at the hostel.

Their drinks are thought to have contained methanol – a deadly substance often found in bootleg alcohol.

Medical specialists say drinking as little as 25ml of methanol can be fatal, but it is sometimes added to drinks because it is cheaper than alcohol.

But Bethany, 28, tells BBC Newsbeat they didn’t even realise anything was wrong until the next day.

“This all happened on the fourth day of the trip. We did the tubing that day and that was good,” she says.

“It’s difficult to obviously describe the timeline. I think when I realised it was all going wrong was when we were on the kayaks for a trip we were doing the following morning. So just over 12 hours on.

“I guess that was when me and Simone were flat on the back of these kayaks, not being able to use our arms. We were just literally staring up into space.

“That was a moment where I thought I really don’t understand what’s happening to us. It just seemed like I was just having to accept my fate.”

Bethany says even when they tried to get help, it took them a while to be treated for methanol poisoning and they had to search for information about it themselves.

“The doctors kept saying it was food poisoning, which obviously didn’t help with trying to treat what was going on,” she says.

“This is when our other friends said ‘let’s get to a private hospital’. In the ambulance on the way there our friend mentioned to the paramedic ‘could it be methanol poisoning?’ He’d done a little bit of research on his phone.

“They rushed Simone off to have dialysis straight away and said to me ‘look can you just sign these forms and we’ll do our best to save her life?’

“And yeah, they did their best.”

Bethany says the group trusted the hostel because the reviews were good but she’s now urging others to be careful.

“We didn’t think we were doing anything stupid, but obviously now I do feel like I should have known more.

“The advice is from me ‘steer clear, drink beer’. Look up the symptoms, be mindful about where you’re drinking.

“Just don’t let it be your best friend that dies from methanol poisoning.”

Bethany’s also set up a petition calling for the dangers of methanol poisoning to be put on the school curriculum in the UK.

It says “children should be taught the dangers of consuming bootleg alcohol as part of the PSHE and/or Biology curriculum in school”.

“I think it just needs to be a five minute talk or possibly even some kind of public health advert, just giving the case study of Laos and saying this can happen,” she says.

“If people want to take the risk and drink it, at least they’ve been educated and then they might even be able to spot some of the symptoms if they do happen to drink it.”

Bethany is currently working in Australia and has since made a full recovery.

She says Simone was “so full of life, energetic, sporty, musical – there’s 100 adjectives I could probably come up with”.

“She was just the best friend that anybody could hope for.

“If you ever had a problem she’d always be trying to help you with it and she was just such a good listener.”

The government has updated its information on methanol poisoning after what happened – there’s a list of countries where its been reported and advice on how to spot it.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We provided consular assistance to British nationals and their families and we remain in contact with the local authorities following an incident in Laos.”

The Department for Education hasn’t responded to Newsbeat about the petition, but its current guidance says students should be made fully aware of the risks of types of drugs and alcohol by the time they leave school.

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays – or listen back here.

The government is no longer ruling out a youth visa deal with the EU, ahead of a summit next month to “reset” relations after Brexit.

Labour has previously said it has “no plans” for such a scheme, which would make it easier for young people to study and work abroad.

But an agreement has emerged as a key European demand in ongoing negotiations between the two sides to boost co-operation. Downing Street declined to repeat its previous opposition to reporters on Thursday, saying it would not provide a “running commentary” on talks.

It comes as over 60 Labour MPs called on ministers to strike a “new and bespoke youth visa scheme for UK and EU citizens aged under 30”.

In a letter to EU relations minister Nick Thomas-Symonds, they argued a mutual deal for time-limited visas, subject to a cap, would “extend new cultural, educational, and economic opportunities to young people in the UK”.

Sir Keir Starmer met European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen later, as preparations increase for the summit in London on 19 May.

Following the meeting, a Downing Street spokesperson said: “Discussing the ongoing negotiations to strengthen the UK-EU partnership, they both agreed that good progress had been made.

“They asked their teams to continue their important work in the coming weeks, with the aim of delivering as ambitious a package as possible at the first UK-EU summit next month.”

The Labour government is aiming to forge closer economic ties to the EU after Brexit. Both sides have also expressed a renewed interest in a defence and security pact amid the war in Ukraine.

A defence deal would potentially unlock full UK access to a €150bn (£128bn) EU-backed loans scheme, with British firms otherwise limited to providing up to 35% of the value of projects funded under the programme.

Speaking at UK Trade and Business Commission meeting on Thursday, Germany’s ambassador to the UK Miguel Berger said he wanted to see progress on a youth visa deal as part of a “package approach” to the talks, where different topics are linked together.

He added that EU citizens had faced “many obstacles” to moving to the UK since Brexit, including “very high thresholds” for skilled work visas.

The UK currently offers visas allowing young people from 12 non-EU countries including Japan, South Korea and Uruguay to study or work in the UK for up to two years. Those from Australia, Canada or New Zealand can extend by a further year.

These visas are subject to annual quotas, ranging from 100 visas for Andorra to 42,000 for Australia, with ballots held where they are oversubscribed.

Applicants from these countries need at least £2,530 in savings, cannot apply for most benefits, and have to pay an annual NHS surcharge of £776 for students and £1,035 for workers.

The European Commission first suggested an EU-wide youth deal in April last year, claiming Rishi Sunak’s government had approached European capitals to discuss individual visa deals, risking “differential treatment” of EU citizens.

Under its original proposal, people aged between 18 and 30 would be able to apply for visas lasting up to four years to work, study, train or volunteer, with no overall cap on the number of visas issued.

It also said EU applicants should not have to pay the NHS surcharge, and should be able to pay the same university tuition fees as British students, rather than the higher fees they have had to pay since Brexit.

There have been suggestions that the Home Office, tasked with delivering government plans to lower overall migration, is pushing for any eventual agreement to be more limited than that suggested by the European Commission.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is reportedly arguing for visas to be limited to one year so that EU citizens taking part do not show up in official immigration figures, with applications also subject to an overall cap.

Asked about the reports, Mr Berger declined to comment, saying that “we have to leave that to the negotiations”.

The EU has been keen to stress that a visa deal would not replicate the bloc’s rules on freedom of movement, under which EU citizens were automatically entitled to live and work in the UK without applying for a visa.

Documents circulated between EU states also suggest a deal could be rebranded as a “youth experience” scheme, in an apparent bid to downplay any link to migration.

But any deal that is negotiated is likely to lead to a political row, with the Conservatives and Reform UK critical of a proposed agreement.

During a local election campaign visit earlier, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said a deal risked “another avenue which people might use to game the system,” adding that Labour “doesn’t know how to negotiate”.

She added: “Where are all these people they want to bring in going to work?”

Reform leader Nigel Farage said a deal could lead to a “huge number of people” coming to the UK, adding it would be “completely against what the Brexit vote demanded”.

An agreement has however been strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, which have long been calling on the Labour government to reach an agreement with the EU.

In his comments on Thursday, Mr Berger insisted a deal would have “nothing to do with migration” as those taking part in the scheme would “go home” once their visa has ended.

The export of video game controllers from the UK to Russia has been banned as they can be repurposed to pilot drones used to launch attacks on Ukraine.

It is part of a package of around 150 trade sanctions against Russia announced by the Foreign Office on Thursday.

The European Union enforced a similar ban on video games and joysticks earlier this year.

Other technology items used in the defence and energy sectors are among items which can also no longer be exported to Russia, including software used to search for new oil and gas wells.

Sanctions were also announced on exports of chemicals, electronics, machinery and metals to limit Russia’s military capability.

This includes electronic circuits and other components that can be used in weapons systems.

“Gaming consoles will no longer be repurposed to kill in Ukraine,” Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty said.

He added: “Putin thought he could use British markets to boost his war effort, buying harmless goods and turning them into tools of war – but the UK is exposing and acting on this sinister trade.

“Today’s action clamps down on Russia’s sneaky trading and deprives Putin of the goods he desperately needs to fight his barbaric war.”

He added that cutting off Russia’s energy revenues “will drain Putin’s war chest”.

“And our tough new measures will also degrade Russia’s military machine – new export sanctions mean Putin will no longer be able to get his hands on specialist technology used to produce weaponry for his illegal war.”

The latest package is part of wider sanctions by the US, UK and EU on Russia, in response to its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Sanctions are penalties imposed by one country on another, to stop them acting aggressively or breaking international law.

The UK also condemned a Russian missile strike on Kyiv that killed nine people and injured dozens overnight on Thursday, one day after Ukrainian, US, UK and European officials met in London to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine.

UK foreign minister David Lammy said on X: “While Ukrainian ministers were in London working towards peace, [President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia was attacking the Ukrainian people.”

K-pop group Just B’s member Bain has revealed to fans he is “proud to be part of the LGBT community” – a rare move in an industry known for its tight control over artists’ behaviour, where stars typically keep details of their personal lives private, particularly relationships.

The star, 23, is now among only a handful of K-pop artists who have come out publicly.

Bain made the announcement in front of fans while performing a solo at a concert in Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

The moment was met with loud cheers from the crowd, according to videos circulating on social media.

“To anyone out there who’s part of the LGBT community, or still figuring it out – this is for you guys,” Bain, whose real name is Song Byeong-hee, said in a video posted on his social media after the concert.

“You are seen, you are loved, and you were born this way,” he added, before launching into a performance of Born This Way by pop icon Lady Gaga, whom he referred to as “my queen”.

His bandmates welcomed the announcement. Just B member Siwoo said he cried while watching Bain’s performance. “I know how hard it was for him, and that made me want to cry more,” he said, according to Korean media outlet News1.

The band’s fans have shown their support as well. “We love you so much and are so proud of you for being yourself,” reads a top-liked comment under his Instagram post.

“You are so loved. So proud to be your fan. Be proud of who you are,” another fan wrote.

Formed in 2021, Just B is a six-member act that has released five EPs and multiple singles.

Coming out remains extremely rare in South Korea’s highly-pressurised entertainment industry. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains taboo, and same-sex marriage is not legally recognised.

A 2022 Human Rights Watch report described discrimination against LGBT people in South Korea as “pervasive”.

Bain is not the first K-pop star to come out. Just last month, Lara, an Indian-American member of the girl group Katseye, came out as queer on a K-pop fan community platform. In 2020, Jiae from the now-disbanded girl group Wassup announced on Instagram that she is bisexual.

Gwyneth Paltrow said she has returned to eating food she previously restricted, including sourdough bread, pasta and cheese, having been on a strict paleo diet for several years.

The Oscar-winning US actress-turned-health guru has advocated for the benefits of a range of different diets while promoting her lifestyle business.

Speaking on her most recent Goop podcast this week, she said: “I went into hardcore macrobiotic for a certain time, that was an interesting chapter where I got obsessed with eating very, very healthily.”

Paltrow said she got into “wellness and food” because of her father’s throat cancer but has now broadened out her food choices.

A paleo diet is based on the idea that if we eat like our ancient ancestors, we’ll be healthier and reduce our risk of certain diseases.

“I really deepened my connection with food and the whole philosophy around macrobiotics, which is essentially just how they eat in the mountains of Japan, so very local, very seasonal,” she explained.

“Lots of fish, vegetables, rice, no dairy, no sugar, etc.”

The star went on to admit that during that period of time she “might have got a little didactic about it.” “I felt so good, I wanted to share that with my dad, my friends and family.”

She said she had become “intoxicated by that idea” that if she and her loved ones stayed hydrated and ate “whole foods” then “we could just feel so much better”.

• 10 things you may not know about carbs

She added she still feels the same way today, to an extent, but that things had “gotten a little more complicated” as she had gotten older regarding “inflammation and health stuff.”

“It’s the reason that Brad and I became paleo a few years ago now, although I’m a little bit sick of it, if I’m honest,” she added, with reference to her husband Brad Falchuk, co-creator of the Glee TV series.

“I’m getting back into eating sourdough bread, and some cheese – there, I said it. A little pasta after being strict with it for so long.

“But again I think it’s a good template, right? Eating foods that are as whole and fresh as possible. I don’t think there is any doctor or nutritionist that would refute that, it’s a good starting point.”

Priya Tew, specialist dietitian from Dietitian UK and media spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, said it was “great to hear” that Paltrow was “adding back into her very restrictive diet”.

“This is definitely a good thing,” she told the BBC.

“Carbohydrates are a vital part of our diets, providing fibre, B vitamins and energy. They are also key for our gut microbiome and also bring taste and enjoyment to meals.

“It sounds like Gwyneth is moving towards a more balanced and nutritious diet, considering her realm of influence it is good to hear that she is finding this of benefit.”

She added: “Nutrition research shows us that cutting out whole food groups is not good for our overall health.

“We need diversity and variety to help us meet all our nutritional needs, to bring taste into out diets and prevent boredom and to also bring pleasure!”

Having largely stepped away from Hollywood in recent times to focus on health and wellness, Paltrow is set to make her big screen return opposite Timothée Chalamet in the upcoming sports action movie Marty Supreme.

She won the best actress Oscar in 1999 for starring in period drama Shakespeare In Love, and also featured in Sliding Doors and a string of later Marvel movies.

The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwandan-backed M23 rebels have agreed to halt fighting in the east of the country until peace talks mediated by Qatar reach their “conclusion”.

It is the latest truce since the rebels stepped up an offensive in eastern DR Congo where authorities say 7,000 people have been killed since January.

Both sides on Wednesday jointly announced to work towards peace following more than a week of talks, which they described as “frank and constructive”.

Last month, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame also reaffirmed their commitment to an “unconditional” ceasefire in a surprise meeting in Doha.

The decades-long conflict has intensified since January when M23 staged an unprecedented offensive, seizing Goma and Bukavu – eastern Congo’s two largest cities – and sparking fears of a wider regional war.

DR Congo accuses Rwanda of arming the M23 and sending troops to support the rebels in the conflict. Despite assertions from both the UN and US, Rwanda has denied supporting the M23.

• What’s the fighting in DR Congo all about?
• The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR Congo
• Your phone, a rare metal and the war in DR Congo

Rwanda has said its forces are acting in self-defence against the Congolese army and allied militias, some of which it accuses of links to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

DR Congo also accuses Rwanda of illegally exploiting its mineral deposits in the east of the country, which Rwanda denies.

In a joint statement released separately by the M23 and Congolese government on Wednesday, each side pledged to give peace talks a chance.

“By mutual agreement, both parties reaffirm commitment to the immediate cessation of hostilities, a categorical rejection of any hate speech, intimidation, and call on all local communities to uphold these commitments,” they said in a statement read on Congolese national TV and and posted on X by the M23 spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka.

They said the ceasefire would apply “throughout the duration of the talks and until their conclusion”.

Sources in the Qatar talks told Reuters news agency that the outcome of the meetings were almost derailed by “technical” issues.

It is not clear how long the truce will hold as several ceasefires have been agreed since 2021, before later collapsing.

Belgium’s Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Prevot termed the truce a “crucial step towards ending the violence”.

Qatar has been mediating between the two parties after the rebels refused to attend peace talks in Angola last month.

The Congolese government had long refused to hold direct talks with M23, branding it a “terrorist” group.

• DR Congo conflict tests China’s diplomatic balancing act
• How DR Congo’s Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
• ‘They took all the women here’: Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak

A normally bustling border crossing between Tanzania and Malawi was noticeably quieter than usual on Thursday as a result of an escalating regional trade row.

From midnight, Tanzania banned the entry of all agricultural imports from Malawi and South Africa in response to what it sees as restrictions on some of its exports.

South Africa has for years prohibited the entry of bananas from Tanzania. Malawi last month blocked imports of flour, rice, ginger, bananas and maize from its northern neighbour.

“We are taking this step to protect our business interests… in business, we must all respect each other,” Tanzania’s Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe said on Wednesday, confirming the ban.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the trade issues have so far failed but Bashe said fresh talks were ongoing.

The row comes at a time when Africa is supposed to be moving towards greater free trade through the establishment of a continent-wide free-trade area, which began operating four years ago.

South African exports of various fruits, including apples and grapes, to Tanzania will be hit. Meanwhile, landlocked Malawi, which has relied on Tanzanian ports to carry its exports such as tobacco, sugar and soybeans to the rest of the world, will have to reroute its goods.

• Trump’s tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact
• Africa is important to Trump, despite aid cuts, envoy tells BBC

Malawi’s ban on the import of certain produce, announced in March, was designed as a temporary measure covering goods from all countries to protect local producers, according to the authorities in Lilongwe.

“It is a strategic move to create an environment where local businesses can thrive without the immediate pressure of foreign competition,” Malawi’s Trade Minister Vitumbiko Mumba said at the time.

Tanzania’s agriculture minister said Malawi’s move had “directly affected” his country’s traders and described the restrictions as “unfair and harmful”.

While confirming the import ban, Bashe assured Tanzanians that it would not threaten their food security.

“No Tanzanian will die from a lack of South African grapes or apples,” he said, adding that, “we are taking these actions to protect Tanzanian interests”.

Neither South Africa nor Malawi have commented on Tanzania’s move.

At the Kasumulu crossing, through which most Tanzania-Malawi trade passes, only a handful of lorries transporting cargo such as fuel were spotted on the Tanzanian side.

On a normal day, more than 15 lorries loaded with agricultural produce would cross the frontier, drivers told BBC.

On the Malawian side, many lorries that should be transporting bananas and tomatoes through Tanzania were parked and empty.

“[The drivers] are now trying to find alternative products to transport. It’s been very difficult for them because they are used to carrying agricultural goods, and now they can’t carry not just bananas and tomatoes, but even maize and potatoes,” Happy Zulu, a business person, told BBC.

Trade flows between Tanzania, Malawi and South Africa – all members of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc), a regional political, security and economic body – were already being affected last week.

On Saturday Bashe posted a social media video showing a pile of rotten bananas in a truck stranded at the border with Malawi, saying it was hard for Tanzania to tolerate the trend.

Tonnes of tomatoes also spoiled at the border recently after lorries from Tanzania were denied entry into Malawi.

Malawi has become an increasingly important market for Tanzanian goods in recent years, with exports trebling between 2018 and 2023, according to official Tanzanian figures.

But while Tanzania can seek alternative markets such as in Kenya, Namibia and South Sudan, landlocked Malawi may find it harder to get its goods out of the country.

Much of its exports go through the Tanzanian port of Dar es Salaam, as well as essential imports such as fuel and machinery.

Losing access to Dar es Salaam would likely force Malawi to move shipments through the Mozambican ports of Beira and Nacala – options that may be more expensive.

Bashe argued the ban was not meant to provoke a trade war but to protect Tanzania’s interests.

“Tanzania will not continue to allow unequal market access to persist at the expense of its people,” he said.

• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• Tanzania signs major carbon credit deal covering national parks
• Tanzania’s second-hand trade war
• Malawi seeks billions of dollars from US firm over ruby sales

Vladimir Putin initially denied having anything to do with Russia’s capture of Crimea in February 2014, when mysterious masked commandos in unidentified green uniforms seized the local parliament and fanned out across the peninsula.

Those “little green men” marked the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine, which culminated in the 2022 full-scale invasion.

The future of Crimea is now at the centre of President Donald Trump’s peace plan and has prompted Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to rule out recognising Russian control of the peninsula.

The exact terms of his plan have not been published, but reports suggest it would include the US recognising Crimea as a legal part of Russia – in Latin.

For Trump, Ukraine’s southern peninsula was “lost years ago” and “is not even a part of discussion” in peace talks.

But for Zelensky to renounce Crimea as an indivisible part of Ukraine would be unconscionable.

• Follow latest updates on Ukraine war

In the words of opposition MP Iryna Gerashchenko “territorial integrity and sovereignty is a red line for Ukraine and Ukrainians”.

Trump made the point that “if [Volodymyr Zelensky] wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it 11 years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

Few shots were fired, but Crimea was seized at gunpoint during a power vacuum.

Putin later admitted hatching the land-grab in an all-night meeting with his officials days after Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader was ousted in Kyiv.

For a US leader in a hurry to secure a peace deal, Crimea could become a big stumbling block.

Trump is correct that there is little chance of Ukraine regaining Crimea in the foreseeable future, and it is in reality – de facto – under Russian control. But that is a far cry from recognising it as legal.

Zelensky points to a 2018 “Crimea declaration” by Trump’s then secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo said the US rejected “Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea” and pledged to continue until Ukraine’s territorial integrity was restored.

• Trump criticises Zelensky over Crimea
• US intensifies bid to end war

Zelensky’s implication is that Trump backed Ukraine on Crimea then, and should stick to that now.

If a landgrab unrecognised by the international community is approved by the US as legal, what would that mean for international law and the principles of the UN charter?

Weeks after Russia’s full-scale war began, there was an initial proposal in Istanbul to park the issue so that Russia and Ukraine would aim to resolve it in the next 10-15 years.

The idea did not take hold but it was a way of getting over that stumbling block.

Zelensky was adamant that he has no power to give up Crimea: “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.”

Article 2 of the constitution states that Ukraine’s sovereignty “extends throughout its entire territory” which “within its present border is indivisible and inviolable”.

Any change to Ukraine’s territory has to go to a national referendum, which must be authorised by the Ukrainian parliament.

It is not just President Trump that has problems with Kyiv. Russia also sees the Ukrainian constitution as an “obstacle” to peace efforts.

Constitutions can be changed, but not while Ukraine is under martial law.

Approving Russia’s illegal annexation would not just be a red line for Ukraine but would be a terrifying precedent for countries such as Romania that border the Black Sea. The precedent would be felt far beyond the Black Sea.

For historical reasons, Russians have long seen Crimea as part of their territory and Putin has spoken of a “living and unbreakable bond” with the peninsula, with its Black Sea resorts and balmy summer climate.

But Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine voted for independence from the collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. It had the status of autonomous republic within and Kyiv allowed Russia to lease the port of Sevastopol as a base for the Black Sea Fleet.

After its annexation in 2014 Putin sought to cement Russia’s control over Crimea, first with a 12-mile bridge built over the Kerch Strait in 2018 and then by capturing a land bridge along the Sea of Azov coast in 2022.

Putin felt he was righting a wrong inflicted on Russia when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Russia, he said, was “not simply robbed, it was plundered”.

• Ukraine in Maps
• Why did Putin invade Ukraine?

Crimea was first annexed by Tsarist Russia under Catherine the Great in 1783 and largely remained part of Russia until Khrushchev’s decision.

Russia and Ukraine were both Soviet republics so it was not a big deal for the Kremlin in 1954.

More than half the population of Crimea was Russian, mainly because the original majority population of Crimean Tatars were deported under Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1944.

Tatars were only able to return to Crimea from exile from 1989 as the Soviet Union fell apart, and they now make up about 15% of Crimea’s population.

Russia quickly organised a referendum in March 2014 but it was rejected as a sham by the international community and the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution backing Ukrainian sovereignty.

The International Criminal Court ruled that Russia’s activity in Crimea amounted to “ongoing occupation”.

Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis, a body representing Crimean Tatars, has insisted that Ukraine must categorically reject any territorial concession in exchange for peace.

“Crimea is the homeland of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people and an integral part of Ukraine,” he said.

Trump’s peace plan has not yet been published, but according to various reports and remarks by US officials, Ukraine would be required to adhere to other difficult conditions.

Russia’s occupation of almost 20% of Ukraine would be de facto recognised behind existing front lines, in effect freezing the conflict in four Ukrainian regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

That would be backed up by a “robust security guarantee”, according to US outlet Axios, presumably backed up by a “coalition of the willing” involving the UK, France but not the US.

There would be a promise not to admit Ukraine into Nato, although it could join the EU.

All US sanctions would be lifted and economic co-operation with the US enhanced.

Axios also suggests Russia would return a small occupied area of the Kharkiv region and allow Ukraine “unimpeded passage” on the Dnipro river, while the US would take charge of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, seized by Russia in 2022.

And then there is a US-Ukraine deal to share minerals profits, which Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal is expected to seal with the US by Saturday.

China has called on the US to cancel its sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods entering the country as a sign that the President Donald Trump is serious about resolving the trade war between the two countries.

A Chinese official said there had been no trade talks with the US, despite suggestions otherwise from the Trump administration.

The trade war between the world’s two largest economies has been escalating, with China sending back Boeing planes it ordered from the US in its latest retaliation over tariffs.

But Trump has appeared to soften his stance on China, saying that the taxes he has so far imposed on Chinese imports would “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

A trade war between China and the US is in full swing, with Trump imposing import taxes of up to 145% on Chinese goods coming into the US, and China hitting back with a 125% tax on American products.

In one of China’s strongest statements yet over the tariff war, Commerce Ministry spokesman He Yadong said the US should remove all “unilateral tariff measures” against China “if it truly wanted” to solve the issue.

“The person who tied the bell must untie it,” he added.

Separately, Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said China and the US had “not conducted consultations or negotiations on tariffs, let alone reached an agreement”.

He added that reports to the contrary were “false”.

Trump previously said negotiations between the countries were “active” – but this was also contradicted by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who said on Wednesday they had not yet begun.

Bessent added that there was an opportunity for a “big deal” between the US and China on trade.

He has previously said he expected a de-escalation of the “unsustainable” trade war, and said the current situation was “not a joke”.

Trump said on Tuesday that he would be “very nice” in negotiations with Beijing in the hope of securing a trade deal.

But following China’s latest comments, he said on his Truth Social media platform “Boeing should default China for not taking the beautifully finished planes that China committed to purchase”.

“This is just a small example of what China has done to the USA, for years,” he added, before repeating accusations that synthetic opioid fentanyl “continues to pour into our country from China, through Mexico and Canada, killing hundreds of thousands of our people”.

The boss of plane manufacturer Boeing revealed China had sent back aircraft it had ordered from the US as part of its retaliation to tariffs.

Kelly Ortberg said this week that two planes had already been returned and another would follow due trade tensions between the two countries.

China held a roundtable on Wednesday to address the concerns of more than 80 foreign firms over the impact of US tariffs on their investments and operations in China, the commerce ministry said.

“It is hoped that foreign firms will turn crises into opportunities,” said Vice Commerce Minister Ling Ji.

Gwyneth Paltrow said she has returned to eating food she previously restricted, including sourdough bread, pasta and cheese, having been on a strict paleo diet for several years.

The Oscar-winning US actress-turned-health guru has advocated for the benefits of a range of different diets while promoting her lifestyle business.

Speaking on her most recent Goop podcast this week, she said: “I went into hardcore macrobiotic for a certain time, that was an interesting chapter where I got obsessed with eating very, very healthily.”

Paltrow said she got into “wellness and food” because of her father’s throat cancer but has now broadened out her food choices.

A paleo diet is based on the idea that if we eat like our ancient ancestors, we’ll be healthier and reduce our risk of certain diseases.

“I really deepened my connection with food and the whole philosophy around macrobiotics, which is essentially just how they eat in the mountains of Japan, so very local, very seasonal,” she explained.

“Lots of fish, vegetables, rice, no dairy, no sugar, etc.”

The star went on to admit that during that period of time she “might have got a little didactic about it.” “I felt so good, I wanted to share that with my dad, my friends and family.”

She said she had become “intoxicated by that idea” that if she and her loved ones stayed hydrated and ate “whole foods” then “we could just feel so much better”.

• 10 things you may not know about carbs

She added she still feels the same way today, to an extent, but that things had “gotten a little more complicated” as she had gotten older regarding “inflammation and health stuff.”

“It’s the reason that Brad and I became paleo a few years ago now, although I’m a little bit sick of it, if I’m honest,” she added, with reference to her husband Brad Falchuk, co-creator of the Glee TV series.

“I’m getting back into eating sourdough bread, and some cheese – there, I said it. A little pasta after being strict with it for so long.

“But again I think it’s a good template, right? Eating foods that are as whole and fresh as possible. I don’t think there is any doctor or nutritionist that would refute that, it’s a good starting point.”

Priya Tew, specialist dietitian from Dietitian UK and media spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, said it was “great to hear” that Paltrow was “adding back into her very restrictive diet”.

“This is definitely a good thing,” she told the BBC.

“Carbohydrates are a vital part of our diets, providing fibre, B vitamins and energy. They are also key for our gut microbiome and also bring taste and enjoyment to meals.

“It sounds like Gwyneth is moving towards a more balanced and nutritious diet, considering her realm of influence it is good to hear that she is finding this of benefit.”

She added: “Nutrition research shows us that cutting out whole food groups is not good for our overall health.

“We need diversity and variety to help us meet all our nutritional needs, to bring taste into out diets and prevent boredom and to also bring pleasure!”

Having largely stepped away from Hollywood in recent times to focus on health and wellness, Paltrow is set to make her big screen return opposite Timothée Chalamet in the upcoming sports action movie Marty Supreme.

She won the best actress Oscar in 1999 for starring in period drama Shakespeare In Love, and also featured in Sliding Doors and a string of later Marvel movies.

An Australian politician has been convicted of supplying drugs after he initially dismissed a video showing him snorting a white substance as a “deepfake”.

Former South Australian Liberal party leader David Speirs was fined A$9,000 (£4311; $5,720) and ordered to complete 37.5 hours of community service by an Adelaide court on Thursday.

Speirs was arrested in September after footage of him snorting off a plate was published by News Corp. He initially denied wrongdoing and reportedly told the news outlet it was a “deepfake” and that he had never used cocaine.

However, he later admitted that was a lie and the ensuing scandal and charges led to his resignation from parliament.

Last month, Speirs pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine to two men in August.

Speirs’ defence said he used drugs “as a form of escapism” from the stress of his work, but the offences did not occur in a work capacity.

The case had sparked intense media scrutiny, with prosecutors arguing that it was in the public’s interest given Speirs’ senior position in politics.

His lawyer had previously asked the court not to record the conviction so his client could travel overseas, but the magistrate said the offences were “too serious”.

“The need for public denunciation for this type of offending and the need for general deterrence is too great to refrain from recording a conviction,” magistrate Brian Nitschke said on Thursday.

Nitschke acknowledged Speirs’ defence that the offences occurred during a time of stress but added it was “certainly no excuse”.

Speirs stepped into the role of South Australia’s Liberal leader in 2022 and had served 10 years as a member of parliament.

He did not speak to media after his sentencing.

K-pop group Just B’s member Bain has revealed to fans he is “proud to be part of the LGBT community” – a rare move in an industry known for its tight control over artists’ behaviour, where stars typically keep details of their personal lives private, particularly relationships.

The star, 23, is now among only a handful of K-pop artists who have come out publicly.

Bain made the announcement in front of fans while performing a solo at a concert in Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

The moment was met with loud cheers from the crowd, according to videos circulating on social media.

“To anyone out there who’s part of the LGBT community, or still figuring it out – this is for you guys,” Bain, whose real name is Song Byeong-hee, said in a video posted on his social media after the concert.

“You are seen, you are loved, and you were born this way,” he added, before launching into a performance of Born This Way by pop icon Lady Gaga, whom he referred to as “my queen”.

His bandmates welcomed the announcement. Just B member Siwoo said he cried while watching Bain’s performance. “I know how hard it was for him, and that made me want to cry more,” he said, according to Korean media outlet News1.

The band’s fans have shown their support as well. “We love you so much and are so proud of you for being yourself,” reads a top-liked comment under his Instagram post.

“You are so loved. So proud to be your fan. Be proud of who you are,” another fan wrote.

Formed in 2021, Just B is a six-member act that has released five EPs and multiple singles.

Coming out remains extremely rare in South Korea’s highly-pressurised entertainment industry. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains taboo, and same-sex marriage is not legally recognised.

A 2022 Human Rights Watch report described discrimination against LGBT people in South Korea as “pervasive”.

Bain is not the first K-pop star to come out. Just last month, Lara, an Indian-American member of the girl group Katseye, came out as queer on a K-pop fan community platform. In 2020, Jiae from the now-disbanded girl group Wassup announced on Instagram that she is bisexual.

A trade war between the world’s two biggest economies is now in full swing.

Chinese exports to the US face up to 245% tariffs, and Beijing has hit back with a 125% levy on American imports. Consumers, businesses and markets are braced for more uncertainty as fears of a global recession have heightened.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government has repeatedly said it is open to dialogue, but warned that, if necessary, it would “fight to the end”.

Here’s a look at what Beijing has in its arsenal to counter US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China is the world’s second-largest economy, which means it can absorb the impacts of the tariffs better than other smaller countries.

With more than a billion people, it also has a huge domestic market that could take some of the pressure off exporters who are reeling from tariffs.

Beijing is still fumbling with the keys because Chinese people are not spending enough. But with a range of incentives, from subsidies for household appliances to “silver trains” for travelling retirees, that could change.

And Trump’s tariffs have given the Chinese Communist Party an even stronger impetus to unlock the country’s consumer potential.

The leadership may “very well be willing to endure the pain to avoid capitulating to what they believe is US aggression”, Mary Lovely, a US-China trade expert at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, told BBC Newshour earlier this month.

China also has a higher threshold for pain as an authoritarian regime, as it is far less worried about short-term public opinion. There is no election around the corner that will judge its leaders.

Still, unrest is a concern, especially because there is already discontent over an ongoing property crisis and job losses.

The economic uncertainty over tariffs is yet another blow for young people who have only ever known a rising China.

The Party has been appealing to nationalist sentiments to justify its retaliatory tariffs, with state media calling on people to “weather storms together”.

President Xi Jinping may be worried but, so far, Beijing has struck a defiant and confident tone. One official assured the country: “The sky will not fall.”

China has always been known as the world’s factory – but it has been pouring billions into becoming a far more advanced one.

Under Xi, it has been in a race with the US for tech dominance.

It has invested heavily in homegrown tech, from renewables to chips to AI.

Examples include the chatbot DeepSeek, which was celebrated as a formidable rival to ChatGPT, and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) maker. Apple has been losing its prized market share to local competitors such as Huawei and Vivo.

Recently Beijing announced plans to spend more than $1tn over the next decade to support innovation in AI.

US companies have tried to move their supply chains away from China, but they have struggled to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

Chinese manufacturers at every stage of the supply chain have given the country a decades-long advantage that will take time to replicate.

That unrivalled supply chain expertise and government support have made China a formidable foe in this trade war – in some ways, Beijing has been preparing for this since Trump’s previous term.

Ever since Trump tariffs hit Chinese solar panels back in 2018, Beijing sped up its plans for a future beyond a US-led world order.

It has pumped billions into a contentious trade and infrastructure programme, better known as the Belt and Road initiative, to shore up ties with the so-called Global South.

The expansion of trade with South East Asia, Latin America and Africa comes as China tries to wean itself off the US.

American farmers once supplied 40% of China’s soybean imports – that figure now hovers at 20%. After the last trade war, Beijing ramped up soy cultivation at home and bought record volumes of the crop from Brazil, which is now its largest soybean supplier.

“The tactic kills two birds with one stone. It deprives America’s farm belt of a once‑captive market and burnishes China’s food security credentials,” says Marina Yue Zhang, associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

The US is no longer China’s biggest export market: that spot now belongs to South East Asia. In fact China was the largest trading partner for 60 countries in 2023 – nearly twice as many as the US. The world’s biggest exporter, it made a record surplus of $1tn at the end of 2024.

That doesn’t mean the US, the world’s biggest economy, is not a crucial trading partner for China. But it does mean it’s not going to be easy for Washington to back China into a corner.

Following reports that the White House will use bilateral trade negotiations to isolate China, Beijing has warned countries against “reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests”.

That would be an impossible choice for much of the world

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC last week.

Trump held firm as stocks plummeted following his sweeping tariffs announcement in early April, likening his staggering levies to “medicine”.

But he made a U-turn, pausing most of those tariffs for 90 days after a sharp sell-off in US government bonds. Also known as Treasuries, these have long been seen as a safe investment. But the trade war has shaken confidence in the assets.

Trump has since hinted at a de-escalation in trade tensions with China, saying that the tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

So, experts point out, Beijing now knows that the bond market can rattle Trump.

China also holds $700bn in US government bonds. Japan, a staunch American ally, is the only non-US holder to own more than that.

Some argue that this gives Beijing leverage: Chinese media has regularly floated the idea of selling or withholding purchases of US bonds as a “weapon”.

But experts warn that China will not emerge unscathed from such a situation.

Rather, it will lead to huge losses for Beijing’s investments in the bond market and destabilise the Chinese yuan.

China will only be able to exert pressure with US government bonds “only up to a point”, Dr Zhang says. “China holds a bargaining chip, not a financial weapon.”

What China can weaponise, however, is its near monopoly in extracting and refining rare earths, a range of elements important to advanced tech manufacturing.

China has huge deposits of these, such as dysprosium, which is used in magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and Yttrium, which provides heat-resistant coating for jet engines.

Beijing has already responded to Trump’s latest tariffs by restricting exports of seven rare earths, including some that are essential for making AI chips.

China accounts for about 61% of rare earths production and 92% of their refining, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

While Australia, Japan and Vietnam have begun mining for rare earths, it will take years before China can be cut out of the supply chain.

In 2024, China banned the export of another critical mineral, antimony, that is crucial to various manufacturing processes. Its price more than doubled amid a wave of panic buying and a search for alternative suppliers.

The fear is that the same can happen to the rare earths market, which would severely disrupt various industries from electric vehicles to defence.

“Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths,” Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade and Investment, told the BBC previously.

“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial.”

Pakistan has responded with tit-for-tat measures against India as tensions soared following a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists.

Islamabad suspended all visas issued to Indian nationals under an exemption scheme with immediate effect, as well as expelling some of its neighbour’s diplomats and closing its airspace to Indian flights.

Indian police have named three of four suspected gunmen behind the attack, saying two are Pakistani citizens and a third is a local Kashmiri man. Pakistan denies Indian claims that it played a role in the shooting.

Tuesday’s attack saw a group of gunmen fire on tourists near Pahalgam, a resort in the disputed Himalayan region.

Police in Indian-administered Kashmir say all three suspects named are members of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). None of the men have commented on the allegations.

A statement from Pakistan’s National Security Committee rubbished attempts to link the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan, saying there had been no credible investigation or verifiable evidence.

Earlier Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that “India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers and we will pursue them to the ends of the Earth.”

He said that the “terrorists behind the killings, along with their backers, will get a punishment bigger than they can imagine”.

“Our enemies have dared to attack the country’s soul… India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism.”

On Wednesday evening Delhi announced a raft of diplomatic measures against Islamabad in light of the killings in Kashmir – one of them was shutting the Attari-Wagah border between the two countries immediately.

India also cancelled visa services to Pakistani nationals “with immediate effect”.

In its response, Pakistan also rejected India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty – a six-decade-old water sharing treaty between the neighbours – adding that any attempt to stop or divert the water “will be considered as an Act of War”.

The country has closed its airspace to all Indian-owned or Indian-operated airlines and suspended all trade with India.

It has also reduced the number of diplomats in the Indian High Commission in Islamabad to 30 and asked Indian defence, naval and air advisers to leave Pakistan before 30 April.

• Kashmir attack risks India military escalation against Pakistan
• India closes main border crossing with Pakistan after attack
• Rage and despair after the attack

About 1,500 people across Kashmir have been detained for questioning in connection with the attack, police sources have told BBC News.

Schools, business and shops are reopening after a shutdown across the region following the shootings.

Police have offered a reward of 2m rupees [$23,000; £17,600] for anyone offering information about any of the attackers.

Visitors from different states in India were killed, with others seriously injured, in one of the deadliest attacks in recent years in the region.

An Indian naval officer on honeymoon, a tourist guide who was the sole breadwinner for his family, and a businessman holidaying with his wife and children were among the victims.

An all-party meeting in Jammu and Kashmir expressed deep shock and anguish at what it called a “barbaric attack”.

The bodies of victims arriving in their home states around India are being given emotional farewells by their families and loved ones.

Meanwhile, reports are coming in from parts of India of Kashmiri students facing harassment in the aftermath of the killings.

A spokesperson for Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s National Conference party said several videos showing students being harassed in colleges and other places were being circulated online.

Nasir Khuehami, head of the Jammu and Kashmir Students’ Association, shared a video of a right-wing Hindu group threatening to physically assault Kashmiri Muslim students in the northern state of Uttarakhand to ensure they leave.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify any of these clips.

A professional footballer has been jailed for 14 months for causing the death of a cyclist in a crash in West Yorkshire.

Adrian Daniel, 33, died 10 days after he was struck by a Mercedes G350 being driven by Mansfield Town striker Lucas Akins, near Huddersfield in March 2022.

The League One player, 36, of Heys Road in Thongsbridge, Holmfirth, was jailed at Leeds Crown Court having previously pleaded guilty to causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

In a victim impact statement, Mr Daniel’s wife, Savanna, said his death had been “like hell and a nightmare I’m not waking up from”, adding: “There was no reason for Adrian to be killed that way.”

Mrs Daniel added: “He was a great father, son and husband and his legacy will always be to live life to the full.”

Mr Daniel, from Meltham, was cycling home from work along Huddersfield Road in Netherton on 17 March when he hit Mr Akins’ vehicle as the footballer pulled out in front of him from the junction with Crosland Factory Lane.

The court heard the crash was captured on Mr Daniel’s helmet camera, and that he was not breaking the speed limit on his bike and had adopted an appropriate position in the middle of the lane.

Judge Alex Menary said Akins, who played in a League One match for Mansfield on Monday, did not check left and right before pulling out.

Had he paused for more time it would have allowed Mr Daniel to travel through any blind spot, the judge added.

The Grenada international, who showed no emotion as he was sentenced, was also banned from driving for 12 months.

In a statement, Mansfield Town said it “offers its sincere and deepest condolences to the family of Adrian Daniel at this difficult time”.

“The club is considering its position with regards to Lucas and will be making no further comment at this stage,” the club added.

The court heard the father-of-three, whose previous clubs include Huddersfield Town and Burton Albion, had been driving his daughter to a piano lesson when the crash took place.

Mrs Daniel criticised Akins for not pleading guilty at the first opportunity, but said she did not want him to go to jail.

“We do not need any more lives to be destroyed by this.”

Defending, Tim Pole apologised on behalf of Akins.

“The fact he caused the death of Mr Daniel continues to dominate his thoughts and it’s a burden he will carry for the rest of his life,” he said.

Judge Menary acknowledged Akins’ mitigation, but concluded: “It seems to be the appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.”

He said he accepted Akins’s remorse was genuine, but said his failure to admit his guilt at an earlier stage prolonged Mrs Daniel’s “heartache and grief”.

In a statement released after sentencing, Mrs Daniel criticised “the farce Akins has made of the justice system”.

“This could all have been resolved sooner and that is the further insult to injury,” she said.

“[It] makes a mockery of any remorse that Akins offers for his actions.”

West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds

Tuesday’s bloodshed in Pahalgam – where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire – marks the deadliest militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.

The victims weren’t soldiers or officials, but civilians on holiday in one of India’s most picturesque valleys. That alone makes this strike both brutal and symbolic: a calculated assault not just on lives, but on a fragile sense of normalcy the Indian state has worked hard to project in the disputed region.

Given the fraught history of Kashmir – claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but ruled by each only in part – India’s response is likely to be shaped as much by precedent as by pressure, say experts.

For starters, Delhi has swiftly taken a series of retaliatory steps: closing the main border crossing, suspending a critical water-sharing treaty, and expelling diplomats.

More significantly, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has vowed a “strong response,” pledging action not just against the perpetrators but also the masterminds behind the “nefarious acts” on Indian soil.

The question, analysts say, is not whether there will be a military response – but when, and how calibrated it will be, and at what cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC.

“It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr Raghavan is alluding to two previous major retaliations by India in 2016 and 2019.

After the deadly Uri attack in September 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the de facto border – also known as the Line of Control (LoC) – targeting what it said were militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

And in 2019, after at least 40 paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulwama, India hit an alleged militant camp in Balakot with airstrikes – its first such strike deep inside Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan responded with air raids, leading to a dogfight and the brief capture of an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength but avoided full-scale war.

Two years later, in 2021, they agreed to an LoC ceasefire, which has largely held – despite recurring militant attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that the combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity”.

“The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully, ” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Covert action offers deniability but may not satisfy the political need to visibly restore deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US.

That leaves India with two possible paths, he notes.

First, the 2021 LoC ceasefire has been fraying, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could greenlight a return to cross-border firing.

Second, airstrikes or even conventional cruise missile strikes, like in 2019, are also on the table – each carrying the risk of a retaliatory spiral, as seen in the air skirmishes that followed then.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

One of the gravest risks in any India-Pakistan crisis is that both sides are nuclear-armed. That fact casts a long shadow over every decision, shaping not just military strategy but political calculations.

“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint – they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp, says Mr Raghavan.

“We’ve seen this pattern in other conflicts too, like Israel-Iran – calibrated strikes, followed by efforts to de-escalate. But the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Mr Kugelman says that one of the lessons of the Pulwama crisis is that “each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation”.

“India will need to weigh the political and tactical advantages of retaliation with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, believes escalation is possible this time, with India likely to consider limited “surgical strikes” like in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Mr Haqqani, a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, told the BBC.

“But such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses – and however Pakistan responds – each step is fraught with risk. The threat of escalation looms, and with it, the fragile peace in Indian-administered Kashmir slips further out of reach.

At the same time, India must reckon with the security failures that allowed the attack to happen in the first place. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Mr Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse – especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

A teenage girl has been killed and three students were injured in a stabbing at a private school in western France.

The attack took place at Notre-Dame-de-Toutes-Aides school in Nantes on Thursday afternoon.

The attacker is said to have been arrested at the scene after being restrained by a teacher.

A significant police presence and emergency services were sent to the school, with army officers also present. It has since been evacuated.

Eye-witness accounts in local media described students running through the site, with some confined to classrooms after an alarm was sounded around lunch time.

Families were informed of the knife attack and told students had been immediately held inside the school.

Authorities helped students gradually leave the site from 15:30 local time (13:30 GMT), as some parents waited nearby.

One father told the Reuters news agency they were “waiting to hold them [our children] in our arms” and “help deal with the stress this will have caused”.

The school has around 2,000 students and educates pupils from nursery through to high school, according to its website.

Psychological support has been put in place for students and teachers. Rue des Épinettes, where the school is located in the east of the city, has been closed off.

French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the casualties on X later on Thursday, and praised teachers at the scene.

He wrote: “By their intervention, the teachers undoubtedly prevented further tragedies. Their courage commands respect.”

After the attack, Prime Minister François Bayrou urged “an intensification” of checks for knives in schools.

National and local politicians visited the school after the attack, where Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau told reporters: “This tragedy is not a news item, it is a social phenomenon.”

He added that the “psychological profile” of the suspect was not known.

Nantes public prosecutor Antoine Leroy is said to have visited the school and will hold a news conference in the coming days.